common course manual constitutional law i

1

COMMON COURSE MANUAL

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Course Instructors: Mohsin Alam Bhat, Alexander Fischer, Amit Bindal, John Sebastian, Sumit

Baudh, Sourav Mandal, Jhuma Sen, Shireen Moti, Anuj Bhuwania

.

2

INFORMATION ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I OFFERED BY JINDAL GLOBAL

LAW SCHOOL `

The information provided herein is by the Course Coordinator. The following information

contains the official record of the details of the course.

Part I

Course Title: Constitutional Law I

Course Code: LW1608

Course Duration: One Semester

No. of Credit Units: Four

Level: B.A.LLB, BBALLB, LLB

Medium of Instruction: English

Pre-requisites: Nil

Pre-cursors: Nil

Equivalent Courses: Nil

Exclusive Courses: Nil

The above information shall form part of the University database and may be uploaded to

the KOHA Library system and catalogued and may be distributed amongst other students.

3

Part II

A. COURSE DESCRIPTION

Constitutional law provides an overarching framework that governs the relationship

(horizontally) between the three branches of government, (vertically) between the federal and

state governments and also between citizens and the state. In the Indian context, constitutional

law is embodied in a written text that forms the supreme law of the land since “the people of

India” are presumed to have given the constitution to themselves in exercise of their sovereign

authority. Consequently, all government actions and laws passed by parliament and the state

legislatures are subordinate to and must conform to constitutional provisions. The Indian

Constitution in Part III contains (like the American Constitution but unlike the British) a written

bill of rights.

The Fundamental Rights were drafted with a view to transforming the structure of Indian society

and thus the topics of positive rights and affirmative action become important. These rights also

provide limits on state action. All the Fundamental Rights can be enforced against the state.

However, the standards by which they are enforced differ depending on which right is sought to

be enforced. The topics will thus include a discussion on the types of standards by which the

rights are enforced against the state. Overall, the course will attempt to create an understanding

of the textual structure and linkages between the rights, to critically investigate several leading

Supreme Court decisions with a view to identifying the rules of constitutional law laid down and

also to understand the processes of argumentation and judicial reasoning with respect to these

rights.

The course also examines the importance of Part IV of the Constitution in the context of the

commitment of the Constitution towards social justice. The course will constantly explore that

which constitutional interpretations helped in the attainment of Justice which is the cardinal

aspiration of the constitution.

B. COURSE AIMS

This course deals with different aspects of rights under Part III and Part IV and aims to foster an

understanding of the:

the significance of a written bill of rights

theoretical concepts involved in defining the nature and scope of the rights and their

interrelationship with one another

how the rights circumscribe the powers of the state to secure the liberties of individuals

on the one hand and how they empower the state to create conditions for realizing

positive rights on the other

application of principles such as equality and liberty through case law analysis

appreciation of the strategies of constitutional interpretation to develop the rights in the

context of contemporary social problems

4

the regime of judicial protection and the reliefs available for their infringement under the

Constitution

C. COURSE INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOMES

Course Intended Learning

Outcomes

Teaching and Learning

Activities

Assessment

Tasks/Activities

By the end of the course students

should be able to:

1. Analytically and

critically describe

and explain the

substantive principles

and concepts of Part

Three pertaining to

the topics to be

covered in the

syllabus.

50%

weight

Reading of cases and

other material, and

research

Students will acquire

knowledge of the

substantive

principles and

concepts of Part

Three pertaining to

the topics to be

covered in the

syllabus.

Preparation outside

the class

Lectures

Students will be

given guidance on

their reading and

research for their

lectures and

tutorials.

Students will, by

responding to

questions and

performing

exercises, develop

their analytical and

critical capabilities

for discussing

important concepts

and principles of

Part Three

pertaining to topics

End-of-course examination

(50% marks)

Class attendance (10%)

Mid term assessments

(40%)


Students’ ability to

understand the

concepts and apply

the principles of Part

Three to given

situations and resolve

problems will be

tested.


The format for these

assessments will be

determined

individually by each

instructor and

communicated in

detail to the students

in class.


research, analyze and

resolve problems,

and communicate

solutions will be

tested.


5

covered in the

syllabus.

describe and explain

the main substantive

concepts and

principles relating to

Part Three on topics

covered in the

syllabus and to apply

them to given

situations will be

tested by all of these

assessment

tasks/activities.

2. Analyse and

critically evaluate:

issues and

concerns under

Part Three

the operation of

the substantive

rules and

principles of Part

Three in terms of

the objectives of

Part Three, the

underlying

values of the

constitution and

the social and

economic

contexts in which

they operate.

35%

Weight

Lectures

Students will be

introduced to

concepts, issues,

and substantive

principles of

Part Three and

the operation of

these principles

in the current

social and

economic

context.



understand the

concepts and apply


Three to given


problems will be

tested.



assessments will be

determined


instructor and

communicated in


in class.



resolve problems,

and communicate

solutions will be

tested.

Apply the principles

under Part Three to

solve legal problems by:

researching

relevant issues

analyzing and

15%

weight

Lectures

Students will be

shown how legal

problems are solved

by applying the

substantive

principles and rules



understand the

concepts and apply


Three to given


6

resolving

problems on

issues arising

under Part Three

effectively

communicating

their solutions

orally and in

writing.

under Part Three

problems will be

tested.



assessments will be

determined


instructor and

communicated in


in class.



resolve problems,

and communicate

solutions will be

tested.

D. GRADING OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

To pass this course, students must obtain a minimum of 50% in each of the coursework and the

examination elements of the assessment. Coursework for this purpose means those ways in

which students are assessed otherwise than by the end of session examination. End of semester

exam will be in the form of a traditional 3 hours written exam and will carry 50 marks. Mid-term

assessments (other than final examinations) will carry 40% of the marks. The format for the mid-

term assessments will be determined individually by each instructor and communicated in detail

in class.

MID TERM ASSESSMENTS

Leading the Class Discussion (20% of the Mid-term assessments): A group of four

students will lead the class discussion for two sessions each week. Each member of this

group will be assessed individually on her ability to contribute to the class discussions on

that week’s Lecture Topic. Allocation of each such topic is to be done to each group as

per the ‘Lecture Programme’ given under Section-A of Part-IV of the Course Manual,

read with the ‘Modified List of Cases’ given under the Appendix of the Course Manual.

Also, such allocation is done purely on roll number basis.

o Optional Submission of Case Comment by Lead Discussants (5% out of the

aforesaid 20%): In addition to the above, each Lead Discussant has the option of

submitting a written case note on any one of the case laws picked up by her for

class discussion in that week. Such submission is purely on an optional basis, and

those availing this option will be assessed out of 5% of their total marks (i.e.,

20%) in this category. In case, any Lead Discussant chooses to exercise this

option, then please write your case note according to the following requirements:

Word Limit: Within a minimum of 1000 to a maximum of 2000 words.

7

Note on Plagiarism: There is a zero tolerance on plagiarism. If any such

written case comment is found plagiarized then no marks will be awarded

against such submission.

Deadline: By the end of each week of the respective ‘Lecture

Programme’.

In-class Written Examination (25% of the Mid-term assessments): On Tuesday, 2nd

April, 2019 between the class hours.

Class Participation (5% of the Mid-term assessments): Each student will be assessed

for making substantial contributions to the regular class discussions during each week’s

‘Lecture Programme’ given under Section-A of Part-IV of the Course Manual, read with

the ‘Modified List of Cases’ given under the Appendix of the Course Manual.

EXAMINATIONS

The course has a final examination based on the reading assigned to each topic by the course

instructor. The examinations will have hypothetical fact patterns and the students are expected to

identify the constitutional issues that they give rise to, analyze the issues and apply correct

principles of law to resolve them. The examination can also have questions based on theoretical

aspects of constitutional law.

ATTENDANCE

All students are required to have a minimum of 75% attendance. Any student falling short of

75% will not be permitted to take the final end of term examination (except in exceptional

circumstances).

OFFICE HOURS OF COURSE INSTRUCTORS

Individual course instructors will announce their office hours in advance to the respective

sections preferably in the first session with them and latest by the end of first week.

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

Serious consequences will ensue for any student involved in plagiarism. All submissions must be

original. Any idea, sentence or paragraph that is taken from any published material must be

credited with the original source and should be duly referenced.

8

Non-compliance with the university’s policy on plagiarism will be severely dealt with and the

student involved will be awarded a “F” grade.

Please note the grades and their values below

Percentage

of Marks

Grade Grade Value Grade Definitions

80 and

above

O 8 Sound knowledge of the subject matter, excellent

organizational capacity, ability to synthesize ideas,

rules and principles, critically analyse existing

materials and originality in thinking and presentation.

75 to 79 A+ 7.5 Sound knowledge of the subject matter, thorough

understanding of issues; ability to synthesize ideas,

rules and principles and critical and analytical ability.

70 to 74 A 7 Good understanding of the subject matter, ability to

identify issues and provide balanced solutions to

problems and good critical and analytical skills.

65 to 69 A- 6 Adequate knowledge of the subject matter to go to the

next level of study and reasonable critical and

analytical skills.

60 to 64 B+ 5 Descent Knowledge of the subject matter but average

critical and analytical skills.

55 to 59 B 4 Limited knowledge of the subject matter and

irrelevant use of materials and, poor critical and

analytical skills.

50 to 54 B- 5 Poor comprehension of the subject matter; poor

critical and analytical skills and marginal use of the

relevant materials. Will require repeating the course.

Below 50 F 0 None of the Above

E. METHOD OF CONDUCTING A CLASS

The class format will combine lecture and discussion, with a primary focus on the latter.

Students are expected to prepare for and participate in class discussion on a regular basis.

9

Students are expected to review the delineated course materials in advance of each class and to

raise questions and present their thoughts on the material during the course of class discussions.

Part III

A. KEYWORD SYLLABUS

Concept of a “right”; state; law; constitutionalism; equality; due process; freedom of speech;

freedom of religion; positive rights; affirmative action; reasonable restrictions; right to life and

personal liberty; judicial review; directive principles; public interest litigation; basic structure.

B. READINGS

V.N. Shukla, “Constitution of India,” [Lucknow: Eastern Book Company, 2012]

M.P.Jain, “Indian constitutional law” [Nagpur: Wadhwa and Company, 2006]

Durga Das Basu, “Commentary on the constitution of India” [New Delhi: Wadhwa and

Company]

Granville Austin, “The Indian constitution: cornerstone of a nation,” [Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 2007]

B. Shiva Rao, “The framing of India’s constitution” [New Delhi: Indian Institute of Public

Administration, 1966]

Granville Austin, “Working a democratic constitution: a history of the Indian experience” [New

Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010]

S.P. Sathe, “Judicial activism in India,” [New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2006]

Oxford Handbook on the Indian constitution [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016]:

(1) Part VI “Rights ---- structures and scope” (Chapters 32, 33, 34, 36 and 37)

(2) Part VII “Rights --- substance and content” (Chapters 39, 40, 41,42, 43, 45, 49,51)

As per the Appendix to the Course Manual, relevant chapters from Shukla or Jain are required

reading for each topic. Apart from these commentaries, articles or texts (if any) pertaining to

each topic will be announced by the instructors before the topic is discussed at least a week

before the class. A suggested list of supplementary readings for some of the topics has been

included in the Appendix but can be modified by the instructors.

10

Case law (the full list of relevant judicial decisions pertaining to each topic) will be announced at

least a week before each topic is discussed in class. A list of important judicial decisions for each

topic is mentioned in the Appendix to the Course Manual but may be supplemented by the

course instructor.

Laws

Constitution of India

Relevant Constitutional Amendment acts

Part IV

A. LECTURE PROGRAMME

This syllabus should be viewed as a general guide. The syllabus may be revised during the

course of the semester. Students will be informed of changes made.

The following programme is intended to be only indicative and is subject to variation as and when

circumstances may render it necessary:

Teaching

Week(s)

Lecture Topic

1 Introduction

2 Citizenship

3 Concept of “State” under Article 12.

4 Definition of “Law” under Art. 13 and concept of judicial review (Article32)

5 The “Basic Structure” doctrine

6 The right to Equality under Art. 14.

7 Affirmative action & substantive quality: Gender & caste as analytical categories

(Arts. 15-16-17)

8-9 Right to freedom with a focus on the right to freedom of speech and expression

(Article 19)

10-11 Right to life and personal liberty (Articles 21- 21A)

12 Right to freedom of religion (Articles 25-28)

13 Cultural and Minority Rights (Articles 29-30)

14 Public Interest Litigation and Social Rights Jurisprudence

15 Review week

B. EXPANDED LECTURE OUTLINES

WEEK 1: INTRODUCTION

11

Questions: What is the relationship between a Constitution and constitutionalism? What is the

significance of a written bill of rights (comparison with the American and British Constitutions)?

What were the discussions in the Constituent Assembly debates about the rights and their spheres

of protection under the Constitution? What fundamental values and principles are embodied in

the Constitution and what is the structure and interrelationship between Parts III and IV? What is

the enforcement mechanism for these rights? What is the relevance of preamble and its

aspirations which set the constitutional goals to be attained in future?

WEEK 2: CITIZENSHIP (ARTICLES 5-11)

This module will deal with the question of who qualifies to be part of the political community

under the constitutional scheme. What are the qualifications of citizenship under the

Constitution and what are its implications? The students will also be introduced to the historical

debates that constituted citizenship in India. They will also be introduced to the contemporary

constitutional controversies, including the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 and the

constitutional facets of the National Register of Citizens.

WEEK 2: CONCEPT OF ‘STATE” (ARTICLE 12)

Fundamental Rights can be enforced against the ‘State’ by approaching the High Court of a state

under Article 226 or directly the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. It is

therefore important to understand what exactly is comprised of ‘State’ constitutionally.

Questions:. What is the constitutional definition of “state” under Article 12? What are the tests to

decide whether “other authorities” could be considered as agencies or instrumentalities of the

state? Can the Fundamental Rights be claimed against non-state actors/private persons? Does the

concept of state need expansion in the wake of privatization/globalization?

WEEK 4: DEFINITION OF “LAW” UNDER ARTICLE 13 AND CONCEPT

OF JUDICIAL REVIEW (ARTICLE 32)

The Constitution envisages two types of judicial review. One is Legislative Competence

Review, which is a subject of study in Constitutional Law II. This type of review focuses on the

legislative competence of the State Legislatures and the Parliament to enact a law based on the

division of legislative powers between the two. The other is Fundamental Rights Compliance

Review, which is the focus of this Course. We will focus primarily on article 13 and 32 to

understand the concept of Fundamental Rights Compliance Review.

There are two other forms of judicial review – Administrative Law Review (which is a subject of

study in a separate course) and Basic Structure Review (on which we will spend some time in

later parts of this course

Questions: What is the definition of “law” under Article 13? How are ordinary “laws” reviewed

under Part III and how are the rights enforced under Art. 32? What is the effect of Article 13 on

12

laws inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights -- what are the consequences of existing and

future laws which are in contravention of fundamental rights? What principles of interpretation

are used under Article 13 ---- such as “no retrospective effect” rule, rule of severability and the

doctrine of colorable legislation? Does the doctrine of colorable legislation apply to post-

constitutional laws?

WEEK 5: THE RIGHT TO EQUALITY: GENERAL PRINCIPLES

(ARTICLES 14-15)

Questions: How do we understand the meaning of constitutional equality? How can we define

and distinguish between the principles of “equality before the law” and “equal protection of the

laws”? What is the difference between formal equality and substantive equality or positive

versus negative equality? What are the tests to determine the constitutional validity of laws under

Article 14? What is the test of reasonable classification? What principles emerge from Article 14

(“Reasonableness”; “non-arbitrariness”) for regulating the exercise of administrative discretion?

What are the grounds of prohibited discrimination under Article 15 (1) and (2)?

WEEK 6: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION & SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY: GENDER &

CASTE AS ANALYTICAL CATEGORIES

(ARTICLES 15, 16 & 17)

Articles 15 and 16 that provide for affirmative action in education and government jobs will be

the focus of study. We will closely read the leading Supreme Court opinions and constitutional

amendments to understand and analyze the constitutional position and the contemporary debates

on reservation. We will also discuss the relevance of Article 17 which created constitutional

criminal law for the first time in the history of constitution making. Lastly, using gender as an

analytical category, we will attempt to understand equality in terms of substantive equality in the

Constitution.

Questions: What are the instances of constitutional classifications under Articles 15-16 (clauses

(3) and (4) of Article 15 and clause (4) of Article 16 (special provisions for women and

children and of backward classes)? Under the “reservations” issue what principles have the

courts laid down to determine “backwardness” and “quantum of reservations under Articles

15 and 16? These two provisions have been the subject of great controversy within a

complex context of various Supreme Court decisions since Balaji (1963) and constitutional

amendments seeking to overturn these decisions. We will also examine the validity of

reservations for certain groups (“Other backward Classes”) in public employment,

reservations in promotions and admission to educational institutions by reference to key

13

judicial decisions and existing constitutional amendments and lastly the uniqueness of Article

17 as novel anti-discrimination provision in the constitution.

WEEKS 7-8: RIGHT TO FREEDOM: FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

(ARTICLE 19)

This module will delve upon analysis of Article 19 of the Constitution. The primary focus

will be on Article 19 (1) (a) but different course instructors would briefly cover other clauses

of Article 19 in their respective lectures. However, a detailed exploration of interpretation

and various aspects of freedom of ‘speech and expression’ are aimed to be studied in the

module. An attempt will be made to study how the conceptual issues of gender and national

security become relevant for constitutional law in order to understand meaning-making by

courts of categories such as obscenity, hate-speech, sedition etc.

Questions: Why this constitutional provision has been restricted only to citizens? What are

the grounds on which “reasonable restrictions” be imposed on the right and how the courts

have understood the meaning of ‘reasonable’ in different contexts? What has been the role of

the Supreme Court in protecting freedom of print and the electronic media?

WEEKS 9-10: THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY

(ARTICLES 21-21A)

Article 21 is an article which is known to be immense interpretive potential. Despite its terse

and concise phraseology, it has seen an interpretive expansion. This module will attempt to

build the foundation on how and why this article became a site for so much litigation.

Further, mapping the historic trajectory in the interpretation of this article we will try to

understand whether the ever-expansive scope of this provision truly emancipatory or is

merely populist? We will study the interpretations and scope of this article as it has emerged

in the Indian constitutional history.

Questions: What is the concept of ‘life’ and ‘personal liberty’ under Article 21? What is

meant by ‘procedure established by law?’ and how is it different from ‘due process of law’?

What has been the impact of Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (A.I.R. 1978 SC 597) on

expanding the right to personal liberty? What is the relationship between Articles 14, 19 and

21 after the Maneka Gandhi case? How has the Supreme Court interpreted Article 21 to

incorporate the American concept of “due process” in Article 21 and what consequent

standards has the court created over time to impose restrictions on state action to protect

personal liberty? How has the judiciary expanded the scope of Article 21 by reading positive

rights that are enforceable against the state into the article?

WEEK 11: RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION

14

(ARTICLES 25-28)

Religion has been a site of controversy right from the inception of the Constitution. However,

secularism, which is erroneously seen as some kind of anti-dote to religious worldview, has

been equally contested as a doctrine in 20th century political science discourses. This module

will analyze how the Constitution of India guarantees religious freedom and what are the

issues and problems that exist by way of interpretation of the constitutional provisions. The

aim of this module is to understand the constitutional spectrum of religious freedom and

operationalization of keywords such as ‘secularism’, ‘denomination’ and limits which

constitution puts on freedom of religion.

Questions: What is the nature and scope of freedom of conscience and the right to freely

profess, practice and propagate religion? Do atheists have a Fundamental Right under Article

25? What could constitute “reasonable restrictions” on that right? What concept of

secularism underlies these provisions of the constitution and what has been the approach of

the Supreme Court towards protecting the value of secularism in the text? What are the

implications of the judicially evolved distinction between essential and non-essential

religious practices and between religious and secular, commercial and political activity for

understanding the scope of this right?

WEEK 12: PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND

CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS

(ARTICLES 29-30)

This module to provide a brief description to the amorphous category ‘minority’. It will

discuss which minorities find recognition by the constitution and to what extent such

protection has helped to further the cause of justice. We will discuss whether minority

protection and its judicial interpretation has led to strengthening of democracy or has served

mere populist agendas.

Questions: What is the regime of special rights created by the constitution for cultural,

religious and even linguistic minorities? How is a “minority” community defined and what

is meant by their right to “establish and administer” educational institutions? What are the

exemptions that have been claimed by the minority institutions from regulations that apply to

state run or state aided institutions of the majority community in order to gain “autonomy” in

managing their institutions of professional or higher education? Article 29 uses the

expression ‘minorities’ in its marginal note but does not employ it in the text of the

provision, which uses the expression ‘all section of citizens’. What interpretive tools have

been employed by the courts to resolve this contradiction?

WEEK 13: BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE & CONTROVERSIES

WITH RESPECT TO RIGHT TO PROPERTY

15

The basic structure doctrine has been a subject matter of rigorous academic discussion. Some

jurists have viewed it as high point of judicial activism while others have questioned its

interpretive legitimacy. It has become a constant reference point in academic writings on

Indian constitutional history as well as in juridical opinions. This module will look into the

origins of this doctrine in the context of controversies surrounding the notion of right to

property. Further, we will situate the doctrine as an aspect of judicial review which was not

present in the original text of the Constitution.

Questions: What is the doctrine of the “basic structure” that was judicially developed in 1973

to identify and protect certain seminal values and the core of Indian constitutional identity?

By its very nature the doctrine is vague and has to be fleshed out from case to case. How can

one determine what are the basic constitutional values that need to be included in this

doctrine and what are the standards for judging the constitutional validity of a constitutional

amendment by reference to this doctrine?

WEEK 14: PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND SOCIAL RIGHTS

JURISPRUDENCE

This module will study the role played by public interest litigation in enforcing the rights

under Part IV of the Constitution of India. This will be done by examining the relationship

between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principle of State Policy – which one of these

two is more important than the other when they come in direct conflict. And to what extent

can the DPSPs can be used to interpret Fundamental Rights. In the leading Minerva Mills

case, the majority opinion declared several provisions of the 42nd Amendment as

unconstitutional as violative of the ‘harmony’ between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs.

Questions: Social rights have been incorporated in the Indian constitution under “Directive

Principles of State policy” in Part IV. Part IV is not judicially enforceable but by expanding

the concept of “life” in Article 21 and using “human dignity” as an intrinsic value in

understanding this right, the Supreme Court has recognized various social and economic

rights as enforceable fundamental rights. What are the leading cases through which the

Supreme Court has understood and designed the relationship between Parts III and IV and

used the Directive Principles as an interpretive tool to read social and economic rights into

Part III? How have judicial decisions, constitutional amendments and current legislation

impacted on the constitutional status and scope of the right to education and the right to

food?

16

Appendix:

Modified Case List for Constitutional Law I

This is a basic list of landmark cases that shape the topics taught in Constitutional Law I under

the various themes. The list can be expanded as per the individual instructor’s choice and

different readings can be chosen by different professors to frame the debates contextually. The

list of cases and reading materials below serves as a common core for this course – at the same

time other reading materials and cases can be chosen by the instructor in class and this is only an

indicative list.

(I) Art. 12 (‘State’ and ‘Other Authorities’)

Case Law:

Electricity Board, Rajasthan v Mohan Lal AIR 1967 SC 1857 Sukhdev v Bhagatram AIR 1975 SC 1331 R.D. Shetty v Airport Authority AIR 1979 SC 1628 Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib AIR 1981 SC 487 Pradeep Kumar Biswas v Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) 5 SCC 111 Zee Telefims v UOI (2005) 4 SCC 649 Rupa Ashok Hurra v Ashok Hurra (2002) 3 SCC 388 Board of Cricket Control of India v Cricket Association of Bihar and others [2015] 3 SCC 251 Janet Jeyapal v SRM University 2015

Readings:

Relevant chapters from Shukla and M.P. Jain

Supplementary:

Sudhir Krishnaswamy,“Horizontal application of Fundamental Rights and state action in India,”

in “Human Rights, Justice and constitutional empowerment” eds. C. Raj Kumar and K.

Chockalingam [New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2007]

Singh, Mahendra P. "Fundamental Rights, State Action and Cricket in India." Asia Pacific Law

Review 13, no. 2 (2005): 203-213.

Iyer, Ramaswamy R. "Public Enterprises as' State'and Article 12." Economic and Political

Weekly (1990): M129-M134.

17

(II) Art. 13

Retrospective Effect

Keshava Madhav Menon v State of Bombay AIR 1951 SC 128

The rule of severability

State of Bombay v F.N. Balsara AIR 1951 SC 318

The rule of eclipse

Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v State of M.P. AIR 1955 SC 781

Future Laws

State of Gujarat v Shri Ambika Mills (1974) 4 SCC 656

Waiver of Fundamental Rights

Basheshar Nath v CIT AIR 1959 SC 149

Are constitutional amendments law?

Shankari Prasad v UOI AIR 1951 SC 458 Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan AIR 1965 SC 845 Golaknath v State of Punjab AIR 1967 SC 1643 Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225

Readings:

Relevant chapters from Shukla and M.P. Jain

Baxi, Upendra. "Some Reflections on the Nature of Constituent power." Indian Constitution–

Trends and Issues (1978): 122-143.

Tripathi, P. K. "Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala: Who Wins?." SCC J 1, no. 3 (1974).

Krishnaswamy, Sudhir. Democracy and constitutionalism in India: a study of the basic structure

doctrine. Oxford University Press, 2010.

(III) Art. 14, 15 and 16 : The right to equality

18

(A) Enunciation of principles of “reasonable” classification and application of those principles

to different fact situations.

(1) State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar (AIR 1952 SC 75)

(2) Kathi Raning Rawat v Saurashtra (AIR 1952 SC 123)

(3) Maganlal Chhaganlal Ltd. V Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (1974) 2 SCC 402

(4) Kedar Nath Bajoria v State of West Bengal (AIR 1953 SC 404)

(5) Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, WP (Crl.) No. 76/2016

(B) Art. 14 and the principles of reasonableness and non arbitrariness

Maneka Gandhi v UOI (AIR 1978 SC 597)

Joseph Shine v. Union Of India (Adultery Judgement) Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 194 Of 2017

(IV) Anti-discrimination and affirmative action (Reservations) in India

Indra Sawhney v UOI AIR 1993 SC 477

M. Nagaraj v UOI (2006) 8 SCC 212

Ashoka Kumar Thakur v UOI (2008) 6 SCC 1

Anuj Garg vs. Hotel Association of India, AIR 2008 SC 663

Air India v Nergesh Meerza, AIR 1981 SC 1829

Ram Singh v Union of India MANU/SC/0283/2015

Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) 10 SCC 396

Indian Young Lawyer’s Association v. The State of Kerala, MANU/SC/1094/2018

Rajbala v. State of Haryana (2016) 1 SCC 463

The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty Fourth Amendment) Bill, 2019

Readings: (1)Relevant chapters from Shukla and M.P. Jain Supplementary:

http://prsindia.org/billtrack/constitution-one-hundred-and-twenty-fourth-amendment-bill-2019

19

B, Errabi: “Protective Discrimination: Constitutional prescriptions and judicial perception,”

10 and 11 Delhi L. Rev. 66 ff (1981-1982)

P.K. Tripathi, “Some insights into Fundamental Rights,” [Bombay: Bombay University

Press, 1972)

M.P. Singh “Jurisprudential foundations of affirmative action: some aspects of equality and

social justice,” 10 and 11 Delhi L.Rev. 39 ff (1981-82)

M. Galanter, “Competing equalities: the law and the backward classes in India,” (OUP:

1984)

Galanter, Marc. "Untouchability and the Law." Economic and Political Weekly (1969): 131-

170.

Kannabiran, Kalpana. Tools of justice: non-discrimination and the Indian constitution.

Routledge India, 2013.

Atrey, Shreya. "Through the Looking Glass of Intersectionality: Making Sense of Indian

Discrimination Jurisprudence under Article 15." The Equal Rights Review 16 (2016): 160-85.

(V) Art. 19(1)(a) --- Freedom of speech and expression Case Law:

Bennet Coleman v UOI (AIR 1973 SC 106)

Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. V Union of India (AIR 1962 SC 305)

Romesh Thapar v UOI AIR 1950 SC 124.

S. Rangarajan vs. Jagjivan Ram (1989) 2 SCC 574

Kedarnath Singh vs State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955

Shreya Singhal v Union of India AIR 2015 SC 1523

Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1960 SC 633

Readings: (1) Relevant chapters from Shukla and Jain Supplementary: (1) P.K. Tripathi, “Spotlights on constitutional interpretation” India Quarterly: A Journal of

International Affairs, 1974, vol. 30 issue 2 172 (2) Vikram Raghavan,”Reflections on free speech and broadcasting in India,” in K.

Chockalingam and C. Raj Kumar eds. “Human Rights, Justice and constitutional

empowerment,” (2006)

20

(3) Bhatia, Gautam. Offend, shock, or disturb: Free speech under the Indian constitution.

Oxford University Press, 2016. (4) Virendra Kumar, “Free press and the independent judiciary: their juxtaposition in the law

of contempt of court,” 47 JILI 447 (2005)

(VI) Access to justice, democratization of the judicial process and social rights

jurisprudence under Art. 21

(1) Kharak Singh v State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 1295 (In the Article 21 Folder) (2) Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494 (3) Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR 1986 SC 180). (4) Francis Coralie Mullin v Union Territory of Delhi (AIR 1981 SC 746) (5) Bandhua Mukti Morcha v UOI (AIR 1984 SC 802) (6) Hinsa Virodhak Sangh v. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat, MANU/SC/1246/2008

Readings: (1)Relevant chapters from Shukla and Jain Supplementary:

Upendra Baxi, “Taking suffering seriously: judicial activism in the Supreme Court of India,”

(1985) Third World Legal Studies, Vol. 4, Art. 6

Sandra Fredman, “Restructuring the courts: Public Interest Litigation in the Indian Courts” in

Sandra Fredman, Human Rights Transformed: Positive Rights and Positive Duties (Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2008)

Nick Robinson, “Expanding judiciaries: India and the rise of the good governance court,”

Washington University Global Studies Law Review, (2009) Vol. 8, 52-53.

Bhuwania, Anuj. "Courting the people: the rise of public interest litigation in post-emergency

India." Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 34, no. 2 (2014): 314-

335.

(VII) Arts. 25- 28 Right to freedom of religion (1) The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Lakshmindra Thirtha

Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282

(2) Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin v. State Of Bombay, 1962 AIR 853

(3) Seshammal v State of Tamil Nadu (1972) 2 SCC 11 (4) N. Adithayan v Travancore Devasvom Board (2002) 8 SCC 106 (5) Commr. Of Police v Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta (2004) 12 SCC 770 (6) Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala (1986) 3 SCC 615 (7) Rev. Stanislaus v State of M.P. AIR 1977 SC 908 (8) Ismail Faruqui v UOI AIR 1995 SC 605 (9) Shayara Bano v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 963, decided on 22.08.2017]

21

(10) Indian Young Lawyer’s Association v. The State of Kerala,

MANU/SC/1094/2018

(11) M Siddiq v Mahant Suresh Das and Ors, decided on 09 Nov 2019. (Babri Masjid – Ram Janmabhoomi matter)

Readings: (1) Relevant chapters from Shukla and Jain

Supplementary:

Gary Jacobson, “The Wheel of Law”

Ronojoy Sen, “Articles of Faith” and “Indian Supreme Court and Secularism”

Dhavan, Rajeev. "Religious freedom in India." Am. J. Comp. L. 35 (1987): 209.

Bhat, M. "Constructing secularism: separating ‘religion’and ‘state’under the Indian constitution." Australian Journal of Asian Law 11 (2009).

Amit Bindal, “Sabarimala and the Flattening of Religious Community”, SEMINAR 721 – September 2019.

(VIII) Arts. 29- 30 Cultural and Educational Rights (1) T.M.A. Pai Foundation v State of Karnataka AIR 2003 SC 355 (2) P.A. Inamdar v State of Maharastra AIR 2005 SC 3236 Readings:relevant chapters from Shukla and Jain

(IX) The Basic Structure Doctrine Case Law:

(1) Golaknath v State of Punjab AIR 1967 SC 1643 (2) Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225 (3) I.R. Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2007 SC 861 (4) M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 (5) Madras Bar Association v Union of India, (2014) 10 SCC 1

Readings: (1) Relevant chapters from Shukla and Jain Supplementary:

(1)Sudhir Krishnaswamy, “Democracy and Constitutionalism in India: a study of the Basic

Structure Doctrine” [New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2009]

(X) Citizenship

Case Law:

Assam Public Works vs Union Of India, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.274 OF 2009

Sarbananda Sonowal vs Union Of India, Writ Petition (civil) 131 of 2000

Readings:

22

Jayal, Niraja Gopal. Citizenship and its discontents: An Indian history. Harvard University

Press, 2013.

Roy, Anupama. Mapping citizenship in India. Oxford University Press, 2010.

Bhat, M. "The constitutional case against the Citizenship Amendment Bill." Economic and

Political Weekly (2019).

common course manual constitutional law i

Documents