Constitution and Amendments
Constitution of India
Constitution of India
CONTITUENTASSEMBLY 00 of 1950
- Published in Gazette 00 on 26 January 1950
- Assented to on 24 January 1950
- Commenced on 26 January 1950
- [This is the version of this document from 26 January 1950.]
Part I – The Union and its Territory
1. Name and territory of the Union
[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, it amended Article 1 where the split of states based on Parts was eliminated as part of the revisions made. States were used in place of Parts A and B. States in Parts C and D were replaced by Union territories. There were added 14 states along with 5 union territories. Also Refer ]
2. Admission or establishment of new States
Parliament may by law admit into the Union, or establish, new States on such terms and conditions, as it thinks fit.
2A. Sikkim to be associated with the Union
[After article 2 of the Constitution, the following article shall be inserted Constitution (Thirty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 1974]Sikkim, which comprises the territories specified in the Tenth Schedule, shall be associated with the Union on the terms and conditions set out in that Schedule.[Rep. by the Constitution (Thirty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1975 , section 5 (w.e.f . 26. 4. 1975 ).][Editorial comment-The Constitution (Thirty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 1974, deals with the appeal raised by the Sikkim government to include them as an associate state in India. In simple words, the people of Sikkim wanted to fill the gap between them and India and thus demanded the special status of an associate state. The Amendment observed the insertion of Article 2A in the constitution. Article 2A stated that Sikkim was associated with the Union while the tenth schedule emphasizes the special conditions of association between the Union and Sikkim. It gives the Sikkim people the right to represent themselves in the Legislative Assembly and various political institutions. This amendment inculcated among the people a sense of belongingness and equal rights as any other citizen.Important Verdicts- State of Sikkim vs Surendra Prasad SharmaAlso Refer][Editorial Comment– The Constitution (Thirty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1975,Remove article 2A:Formation of Sikkim as a State within the Indian Union. Also Refer]
3. Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States
Parliament may by law-
Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal contained in the B ill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States , the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference or within such further period as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired.[In article 3 of the Constitution, for the proviso, the following proviso shall be substituted through Constitution (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1955][Editorial Comment– The Constitution (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1955, which attempted to modify Article 3 of the Indian Constitution. then-President Rajendra Prasad gave his approval to the bill, which was then published in The Gazette of India on December 26, 1955. Originally, Article 3, did not prescribe a time limit for expression of views by the States on the States reorganization laws. It was feared that the States could forestall the passage of the State Reorganisation Act by not expressing their views for any length of time. The amended Article now provides a time limit within which the State has to express their views. If they do not express their views within the specified time the Bill may be passed by Parliament. Important Verdict: Babulal Parate vs The State Of Bombay And Another & Also Refer ]Explanation I.- In this article, in clauses (a) to (e), “State” includes a Union territory, but in the proviso, “State” does not include a Union territory.Explanation II.- The power conferred on Parliament by clause (a) includes the power to form a new State or Union territory by uniting a part of any State or Union territory to any other State or Union territory.[Editorial Comment– The Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 1966, revised Article 3 of the Constitution to give new meaning to the terms “State” and “Union territories”. The modification clarified that in Article 3, the term “State” in clauses (a) to (e) must include “Union territories”. However, this was not applicable in the proviso. It further explained that the power under clause (a) involves the authority of the Parliament for the formation of a new State or Union territory. This may be done by joining a part of any State or Union territory with some other State or Union territory. Also refer ]
4. Laws made under articles 2 and 3 to provide for the amendment of the First and the Fourth Schedules and supplemental, incidental and consequential matters
Part II – Citizenship
5. Citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution
At the commencement of this Constitution every person who has his domicile in the territory of India and—
shall be a citizen of India.
6. Rights of citizenship of certain persons who have migrated to India from Pakistan
Notwithstanding anything in article 5, a person who has migrated to the territory of India from the territory now included in Pakistan shall be deemed to be a citizen of India at the commencement of this Constitution if—
Provided that no person shall be so registered unless he has been resident in the territory of India for at least six months immediately preceding the date of his application.
7. Rights of citizenship of certain migrants to Pakistan
Notwithstanding anything in articles 5 and 6, a person who has after the first day of March, 1947, migrated from the territory of India to the territory now included in Pakistan shall not be deemed to be a citizen of India:Provided that nothing in this article shall apply to a person who, after having so migrated to the territory now included in Pakistan, has returned to the territory of India under a permit for resettlement or permanent return issued by or under the authority of any law and every such person shall for the purposes of clause (b) of article 6 be deemed to have migrated to the territory of India after the nineteenth day of July, 1948.
8. Rights of citizenship of certain persons of Indian origin residing outside India
Notwithstanding anything in article 5, any person who or either of whose parents or any of whose grand-parents was born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935 (as originally enacted), and who is ordinarily residing in any country outside India as so defined shall be deemed to be a citizen of India if he has been registered as a citizen of India by the diplomatic or consular representative of India in the country where he is for the time being residing on an application made by him therefore to such diplomatic or consular representative, whether before or after the commencement of this Constitution, in the form and manner prescribed by the Government of the Dominion of India or the Government of India.
9. Persons voluntarily acquiring citizenship of a foreign State not to be citizens
No person shall be a citizen of India by virtue of article 5, or be deemed to be a citizen of India by virtue of article 6 or article 8, if he has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of any foreign State.
10. Continuance of the rights of citizenship
Every person who is or is deemed to be a citizen of India under any of the foregoing provisions of this Part shall, subject to the provisions of any law that may be made by Parliament, continue to be such citizen.
11. Parliament to regulate the right of citizenship by law
Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part shall derogate from the power of Parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship.
Part III – Fundamental Rights
12. Definition
In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, “the State” includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.Editorial Comment – This article provides the definition of the “state” in India and the various organs which come under it. This definition of the State under Article 12 is applicable only for Part 3 (Fundamental Rights) and Part 4 (Directive Principles of State Policy) of the Constitution of India.
The meaning of “Other Authorities” under Article 12 can be understood by looking at leading case laws such as In the case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohanlal, AIR 1967wherein it was decided that “other authorities is wide enough to include within it every authority created by a statute on which powers are conferred to carry out governmental or quasi-governmental functions and functioning within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.”
The court further laid down the guidelines for deciding ‘any authority’ as ‘Other Authority’ under Article 12, In the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport (1979): “If the entire shares are owned by the Government, “If almost the entire expenditure is done by the Government”, “If there is a state conferred monopoly in that corporation”, “Whenever there is deep and pervasive control by the Government” and “If the functions by the corporation are of Public importance” and lastly, “If a department of the Government is transferred to a corporation.”
Indian Courts have interpreted the meaning of ‘State’ in various contexts over time to extend the dimension of Fundamental Rights.
In the case of University of Madras v. Santa Bai, the Madras High Court evolved the principle of ejusdem generis i.e. of the “like nature”. It means that those authorities are covered under the expression ‘other authorities’ which perform governmental or sovereign functions.
In Sukhdev v. Bhagatram, LIC (Life Insurance Corporation of India) , ONGC (Oil and Natural Gas Corporation) and IFC (International Finance Corporation) were held to be state as they perform very similar functions which seem to be governmental or sovereign functions.
Another set of discussions have been around the fact of the Judiciary becoming part of the state. Eminent Jurists like H.M.Seervai, V.N.Shukla consider judiciary to be State. Their view is supported by Articles 145 and 146 of the Constitution of India.
“It was held that the Supreme Court is empowered to make rules for regulating the practice and procedure of Courts and is also empowered to make appointments of its staff and servants and decide its service conditions.”
In Prem Garg v. Excise Commissioner H.P. The Supreme Court held that when rule making power of the judiciary is concerned, it is ‘state’.
There have been contrary opinions on this subject too. In Rati Lal v. State of Bombay, it was held that the judiciary is not state for the purpose of Article 12. In A.R.Antulay v. R.S.Nayak and N.S.Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, it has been observed that “when rule making power of judiciary is concerned it is state but when exercise of judicial power is concerned it is not state.”
Thus, the word ‘state’ under Article 12 jurisprudence has evolved in India through various interpretations and discussions in the High courts and the Supreme court. It has been given a wider meaning which ensures that Part-III of the constitution can be applied to a larger extent.
References
Indiankanoon
ConstitutionofIndia.net
Know India Government Portal
Blog Ipleaders
Legal Service India
13. Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights
Article 13 (1) states that all the laws which are made before the Constitution will be void as long as they are violating the provisions of the Fundamental Rights. It further states that only that part of the law which will be void which is against the provisions of the constitution and not the whole law itself. This guarantee is against the existing laws and future laws and not to the laws which are made before the commencement of the constitution.
Article 13(2) states that all the laws which are made after the commencement of the Constitution are void to the extent of the infringement of the Fundamental Rights given in part 3 of the Constitution.
The ‘Doctrine of Eclipse’ asserts that all the Pre-Constitutional laws which are against the fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution will become dormant and not dead. They will remain dormant as long as the state does not amend the law and its infringing nature. So this doctrine applies to only Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution.
In Keshavan Madhvan Menon v. State of Bombay, the court said that the law which is infringing the rights of the citizens after the commencement of the constitution is ‘void ab initio’ for the citizens of the country but it will remain enforceable for the non-citizens and companies. The doctrine of Eclipse makes the law unenforceable but it doesn’t make the law void ab initio.
The ‘doctrine of Waiver’ means that a person who is receiving a right or a privilege can waive that right according to his will. Once the right is waived by the individual then they cannot claim it back. In Behram v. State of Bombay, it was decided by the court that the rights which are given in part 3 of the constitution cannot be waived by an individual.
The ‘Doctrine of Separability’ means that if a part of a law is against the provisions of the constitution then only that offending part will be declared as void and not the whole statute. This doctrine is applied in both Article 13 (1) and Article 13 (2) of the Indian Constitution. In R.M.D.C. v. Union of India, AIR 1957, Supreme Court has given some rules relating to this doctrine:
“1. It is important to understand the intention of the legislature before using this doctrine.
2. When separation of invalid part of the statute is very difficult then the whole law will be held as invalid.
3. If after deleting the invalid part, the valid part has no value left to it then the whole act will be rejected in its entirety.”
Article 13(3) (a) defines “Law”. According to this section, Law includes any ordinance, order, bye-Law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usages. This definition of law is given a wide meaning so that it can be added to a wide variety of state instrumentalities.
In Ahmedabad Women Action Group v. Union of India, AIR 1977, Supreme Court said that personal laws (Hindu Law, Muslim Law, and Christian Law) are not part of the definition of Law under Article 13. The Bye-Laws made by the Cooperative Societies are also not part of the definition of Law.
There have also been other discussions on whether “Law” includes constitutional amendments. This question was first decided in the case of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India AIR 1951. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the word law under Article 13(2) doesn’t include a constitutional amendment. This entailed that the Parliament has power to amend the Fundamental Rights according to their will.
Later in the case of Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967, the Supreme Court overruled the Shankari Prasad verdict and stated that the word ‘Law’ in Article 13(2) includes the constitutional amendments. If any constitutional amendment is infringing the Fundamental rights then that amendment will be void.
To nullify the Golak Nath decision the Parliament passed the 24th Amendment Act, 1971, wherein parliament added Clause 4 in Article 13 which stated that nothing in Article 13 shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under Article 368.
Later in the case of the Kesavananda Bharati v. the State of Kerala, AIR 1973, the constitutionality of the 24th Amendment was held valid. So the present position of the word “Law” is that a Constitutional Amendment does not include the word. This gives the Parliament the power to amend the provisions of the Fundamental rights as long as they align with the basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution.ReferencesIndianKanoonBlog IpleadersConstitutionofIndia.netLawctopus AcademikeWikipedia[[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Twenty-Four Amendment) Act, 1971, enables Parliament to dilute Fundamental Rights through Amendments of the Constitution.Tthe 24th Amendment was effected to abrogate the Supreme Court ruling in I.C. Golaknath and Ors. vs State of Punjab and Anrs. The Supreme Court delivered its ruling, by a majority of 6-5 on 27 February 1967. The Court held that an amendment of the Constitution is a legislative process, and that an amendment under article 368 is “law” within the meaning of article 13 of the Constitution and therefore, if an amendment “takes away or abridges” a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III, it is void. Article 13(2) reads, “The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the right conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of contravention, be void.” The Court also ruled that Fundamental Rights included in Part III of the Constitution are given a “transcendental position” under the Constitution and are kept beyond the reach of Parliament. The Court also held that the scheme of the Constitution and the nature of the freedoms it granted incapacitated Parliament from modifying, restricting or impairing Fundamental Freedoms in Part III Also Refer ]
14. Equality before law
The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.Editorial Comment -Article 14 rejects any type of discrimination based on caste, race, and religion, place of birth or sex. This Article is having a wide ambit and applicability to safeguard the rights of people residing in India.
This article is divided into two parts:
Equality before the Law: This part of the article indicates that all are to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. This is a negative concept as it implies the absence of any privilege in favor of any person. This is a substantive part of the article.
Equal protection of the Laws: This part means that the same law will be applied to all the people equally across the society. This is a positive concept as it expects a positive action from the state. This is a procedural part of article 14.
“The dissent of Justice Subba Rao in the State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya 1960stated that Article 14 comprises both “positive content” as well as “negative content”. Whereas, equality before the law is a negative content, equal protection of the laws exhibits a positive content of Article 14.”
The doctrine of Anti Arbitrariness: The scope of article 14 was drastically increased by the Supreme Court by including the executive discretion under its ambit. In the case of E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1974, the court said that Article 14 gives a guarantee against the arbitrary actions of the State. The Right to Equality is against arbitrariness. They both are enemies to each other. So it is important to protect the laws from the arbitrary actions of the Executive.
“The first landmark judgment which actually spotted the virtue of non-arbitrariness in Article 14 was S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India . The Court, for the first time held “absence of arbitrary power” as sine qua non to rule of law with confined and defined discretion, both of which are essential facets of Article 14.” In here Justice Subba Rao elaborating on the wide expanse of Article 14 , vide para 14 held thus: “In this context it is important to emphasize that the absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of law upon which our whole constitutional system is based. In a system governed by rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon executive authorities, must be confined within clearly defined limits.”
In the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978, Justice Bhagwati said that Equality is against the arbitrariness of State action. So this doctrine ensures equality of treatment. “The seven-Judge Bench held that a trinity exists between Article 14, Article 19 and Article 21. All these articles have to be read together. Any law interfering with personal liberty of a person must satisfy a triple test: (i) it must prescribe a procedure; (ii) the procedure must withstand the test of one or more of the fundamental rights conferred under Article 19 which may be applicable in a given situation; and (iii) it must also be liable to be tested with reference to Article 14.”
Natural Justice as a part of Article 14: From the case of A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, It is evident that Natural Justice (natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem)) is an integral part of Article 14. The court held that “the Principle of Natural Justice helps in the prevention of miscarriage of Justice, These Principles also check the arbitrary power of the State.”
Classification Test: In the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, 1958 the Supreme Court describes the jurisprudence of equality before the law. It simply permits the State to make differential classification of subjects (which would otherwise be prohibited by Article 14) provided that the classification is founded on intelligible differentia (i.e. objects within the class are clearly distinguishable from those that are outside) and has a rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved by the classification.
In the case of Indra Sawhney v UOI, 1993 which is a landmark judgment on aspects of reservation in India. “The Court interpreted the relation between Article 14 and Article 16. It was held that Article 16(1) is a facet of Article 14. Just as Article 14 permits reasonable classification, so does Article 16(1). A classification may involve reservation of seats or vacancies. The principle aims of Article 14 and 16 is equality and equality of opportunity and Clause (4) of Article 16 is a means of achieving the very same objective. Both the provisions have to be harmonized keeping in mind the fact that both are the restatements of the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14.”
Further expansion of Article 14 was done in the case of Visakha v State of Rajasthan, 1997
“The judgment sought to enforce the fundamental rights of working women under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sexual Harassment violates the fundamental right of the women of gender equality which is codified under Article 14 of Indian Constitution and also the fundamental right to life and to live a dignified life. The Court held that even though there is no express provision for sexual harassment at workplace under Indian Constitution, it is implicit through these fundamental rights.” (references mentioned below)
Expansion of Article 14 in terms of defining Gender: In the case ofNational Legal Service Authority [NALSA] v UOI, 2014.
“This case was filed by the National Legal Services Authority of India (NALSA) to legally recognize persons who fall outside the male/female gender binary, including persons who identify as “third gender”. While drawing attention to the fact that transgender persons were subject to “extreme discrimination in all spheres of society”, the Court held that the right to equality (Article 14 of the Constitution) was framed in gender-neutral terms (“all persons”). Consequently, the right to equality would extend to transgender persons also.”
Further in Shayara Bano v UOI, 2016 “the 5 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court pronounced its decision in the Triple Talaq Case, declaring that the practice of instantaneous triple talaq [Talaq-ul-biddat] was unconstitutional. The Bench observed that the fundamental right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution, manifested within its fold, equality of status. Gender equality, gender equity and gender justice are values intrinsically entwined in the guarantee of equality, under Article 14.”
These above discussed landmark cases and many more have contributed to expand the ambit and scope of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, to strive for a more equal and fair society.
References
SCC online
Blog Ipleaders
Wikipedia
Legal Service India
Equality Human Rights
15. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth
Explanation.—For the purposes of this article and article 16, “economically weaker sections” shall be such as may be notified by the State from time to time on the basis of family income and other indicators of economic disadvantage.[Editorial Comment – Article 15 protects the citizens against various forms of discrimination based on religion and gender. The Constitution of India guarantees various rights to its citizens, including no discrimination on account of religion, race, caste, or place of birth. Article 15 restricts discrimination on the ground of:
Religion – It means that no person should be discriminated against on the basis of religion from accessing any public place or policy by the state or any group.
Race – Ethnic origin should not form a basis of discrimination. For example, a citizen of Afghan origin should not be discriminated against those of an Indian origin.
Caste – Discrimination on the basis of caste is also prohibited to prevent atrocities on the lower castes by the upper caste.
Sex – Gender of an individual shall not be a valid ground for discrimination in any matter.
Place of birth – A place where an individual is born should not become a reason for discriminating among other members of the country.
In the case ofKathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, the state of Saurashtra set up special courts under Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures Ordinance 1949, to adjudicate on the matters ofsection 302,section 307 andsection 392read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The contention brought before the court was that these provisions are discriminatory for the residents depending upon the territory.
The court stated that all kinds of legislative differentiation are not discriminatory. The legislation did not refer to certain individual cases but to offenses of certain kinds committed in certain areas and hence it is not discrimination.
In another significant case, John Vallamattom v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 2902 discussed that The Indian Succession Act 1925 prevented the petitioners from bequeathing property for religious and charitable purposes. The petitioner contended it to be discriminatory against the testamentary dispositions by a Christian.
The court stated that the Act was to prevent people from making injudicious death-bed bequests under religious influence, but had a great impact on a person desiring to dispose of his property upon his death. Hence, the legislation is clearly discriminatory as the properties of any Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain or Parsi were excluded from the provisions of the Act. Further, no acceptable reasoning was provided to show why the provision regulates religious and charitable bequests of Christians alone.
Clause 1 of the Article prohibits the State from discriminating against citizens on five protected grounds only. This means that if the discrimination is only on the basis of these 5 points then it will be void.
One of the important points to remember under this clause is that the prohibition is against the state and not against any private individuals. This clause is used to give horizontal reservations like reservations for visually impaired people. The Supreme Court in D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1955 has made it clear that the place of birth and place of residence are two different things and States are allowed to differentiate on the basis of place of residence. In this case, the residents of the State were allowed exemption from paying the capitation fee. But the non-residents were asked to pay a capitation fee for admission in the medical college. This was held valid by the Supreme Court.
Clause 2 discussed Access to Public Places. This clause gives access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment to all. This clause also makes wells, tanks, bathing Ghats, roads and places of public resort accessible for every citizen. This clause is applied not only to the state but also against the individuals. It is illegal and unjust to restrict or prevent access to a public place established by the state exclusively for public use.
Clause 3 discusses Special Provision for Women and Children. This clause is an exception to clause 1 and 2. This clause provides special preference to Women and Children as a matter of positive discrimination. It entails that nothing in this Article can stop the state from giving special preference to the Women and Children. In Revathi v. Union of India, AIR 1998 case, the court held that the word ‘for’ which is given under this clause means that states can give special preference to Women and Children in legislation.Clause 4 discusses Special Provisions for Backward Classes. This is the second exception of clause 1 and 2 of Article 15. This clause was not part of the original Constitution and was included through the 1st Constitutional Amendment. This clause makes special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens (SEBCs), Schedule Caste (SC) and Schedule Tribes (STs).
In Balaji v. State of Mysore, AIR 1963, the government of Mysore set up a reservation of 68% of the total seats in Engineering and Medical colleges. These seats were reserved in the favor of SEBCs, STs and SCs. The court held that this legislation breached the limit of reservation which should not be more than 50% of the total seats. The court also stated that the backwardness must be both Social and Economical. It can’t be either social or economical alone.
It was also held by the Supreme Court inA. Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu that classifying socially and educationally backward classes on the basis of caste was in violation of Article 15(4). According to the Court, it was, however, necessary for the conditions of such a class of people to change as that was the main reason for providing them with a reservation.
Clause 5 discusses Reservation in Educational institutions. This is the 3rd Exception of Article 15. This exception was added by the 93rd Constitutional Amendment. This clause was added as a result of a Judgment ofPA Inamdar and Ors. V. State of Maharashtra and Ors. In this judgment the court held that different states cannot impose its reservation policy on minority and non-minority unaided private colleges, including professional colleges. The validity of this act and 93rd Constitutional Amendment was challenged in Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008)
Clause 6 lays down the Special Provisions for EWS category. This provision was added by the 103rd Constitutional amendment Act, 2019. This is the latest exception that provides for special provisions for the Economic Weaker Section (EWS). Several states have implemented schemes to enforce reservations for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) based on Clause (6). In 2021, the central government issued a notification to introduce EWS reservation in the medical postgraduate entrance exam. However, this decision was challenged in the Supreme Court.Multiple parties raised concerns about the constitutionality of the 103rd Amendment and brought the matter before the Supreme Court. They argued that it goes against the jurisprudence on reservations, which does not permit reservations solely based on economic criteria. On November 7, 2022, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, ruled that the 103rd Amendment does not violate the fundamental structure of the Constitution. Justices Maheshwari, Trivedi, and Pardiwala delivered separate judgments in favor of the majority, while Justice Bhat expressed a dissenting opinion on behalf of himself and Chief Justice U.U Lalit.
References
IndianKanoon
ConstitutionofIndia.net
EBC India
Blog Ipleaders
Human Rights Watch[Editorial comment– The Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, introduces 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of society for admission to Central Government-run educational institutions and private educational institutions (except for minority educational institutions), and for employment in Central Government jobs The Amendment does not make such reservations mandatory in State Government-run educational institutions or State Government jobs. However, some states have chosen to implement the 10% reservation for economically weaker sections. Currently, the quota can be availed by persons with an annual gross household income of up to ₹8 lakh (US$10,000). Families that own over 5 acres of agricultural land, a house over 1,000 square feet, a plot of over 100-yards in a notified municipal area or over a 200-yards plot in a non-notified municipal area cannot avail the reservation. Persons belonging to communities that already have reservations such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the “non creamy layer” of Other Backward Classes are also not eligible for reservation under this quota(creamy layer of OBC crosses 8 lakh limit).Also Refer]
16. Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment
Clause 1 states that there shall be equal opportunity for the citizens in the matter of employment or appointment to any office under the State. This clause does not provide the right to employment; it only gives the right to equal opportunity in case of any available vacancy in public employment. This clause also applies to promotions or termination and other aspects of state employment. This equality is applied only to the people who are applying for the same employment opportunity or are working in the same post.
Clause 2 states that there will be no discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence in employment. The state cannot discriminate only on the basis of the above criterias.
It is stated in clause 3 of Article 16 that nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law which prescribes to the citizens who are appointed to any office under the State in regard to any requirements as to residence within that State or Union territory prior to employment or appointment to any office under the State.
Article 16(4) of the Indian constitution provides for the reservation of services under the State in favor of the backward class of citizens. Backward class includes Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
In the case of Balaji v. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 the court held that caste cannot be the sole determining criteria for gauging the backwardness of a community. It can be their Poverty or the place where they live also. In the case of T. Devadashan v. Union of India, AIR 1964, the court struck down the carry forward rule for the vacancies of backward classes. The Court held that, following Balaji, the reserve vacancies in any one year had risen to more than 50% because they were not constitutional because of the carry-forward clause. The 50% rule only applies to proper reservations, i.e., backward classes reservations made under Article 16(4). The law cannot be applied to exemptions, concessions, or reliefs given to retroactive classes in compliance with Article 16(4).
In the landmark judgment,Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 (Mandal case), the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of “carry forward” reservations. The Second Backward Classes Committee, headed by BP Mandal, submitted its report which recommended 27 percent reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and 22.5 percent for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes.
The Central government, however, acted on the report a decade later, by issuing an office memorandum (OM), providing 27 percent vacancies for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes to be filled by direct recruitment.
Indra Sawhney, the petitioner in this case, made three principal arguments against the Order- The extension of reservation violated the Constitutional guarantee of equality of opportunity, caste was not a reliable indicator of backwardness and that the efficiency of public institutions was at risk.
The Supreme Court upheld the government order that caste was an acceptable indicator of backwardness. Thus, the recommendation of reservations for OBCs in central government services was finally implemented in 1992. The Supreme Court states that 27% central government reservation for OBCs is valid. However, some states denied the existence of the creamy layer, and a report commissioned by the supreme court was implemented. The case was pressed again in 1999 and the supreme court reaffirmed the creamy layer exclusion and extended it to SCs and STs. This judgment also overruled Rangachar v. General Manager Southern Railway and Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India verdicts, which said that reservations could be made in promotions as well as appointments. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India held that reservations cannot be applied in promotions.
Later, the Parliament enacted the 77th Amendment Act, 1995 and added clause (4A) to Article 16 of the Constitution, thereby enabling the Parliament to make provisions for reservation for SCs and STs in promotion posts. This simply meant that even after the judgment of mandal case, the reservation in promotion in government jobs, shall continue.
Clause (4B) was added to the Indian Constitution by way of 81st Amendment Act, 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 of the SEBC category 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.
Clause (5) exempts a law from the application of clauses (1) and (2), which require the incumbent of any office to be religiously qualified for appointment.
The case M. Nagaraj v. Union of India dealt with Articles 16 (4A) and (4B) of the Constitution. It was held in this case that in order to grant reservations to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the State must collect ‘quantifiable data’ to demonstrate their backwardness. It was held that the concept of the creamy layer will also apply to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and therefore, they would not be entitled to any such reservations. Further, the decision was altered as it was argued by the Attorney-General of India that both the holdings were incorrect as they were contrary to the judgment which was given in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (non-exclusion of creamy layer in matters of reservations).
Clause (6) was added to Article 16 by the 103rd Amendment Act, 2019, which came into effect on January 14, 2019, and empowers the State to make various provisions for reservation in appointments of members of the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of society to government posts. However, these provisions must be within the 10% ceiling, in addition to the existing reservations.
In the case of Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022) the constitutionality of the 103rd Amendment was contested, alleging that it violated the fundamental structure of the Indian Constitution. However, the majority decision, with a 3:2 ratio, upheld the amendment as constitutionally valid. Justice Maheshwari explained that reservations go beyond being mere affirmative actions or measures to address social and educational backwardness; instead, they serve to combat various forms of disadvantages. The majority also ruled that a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in addition to the existing 50% reservation limit, as established in the Indra Sawhney Case, is constitutional. Additionally, all three judges agreed that the 50% limit is not rigid and may be surpassed in exceptional circumstances.
References
Social Laws Today
IndianKanoon
News Article
Blog Ipleaders
17. Abolition of untouchability
“Untouchability” is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of “Untouchability” shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.Editorial Comment – The Indian Constitution, specifically Article 17, has abolished the practice of untouchability in all its forms. This article explicitly declares the prohibition of untouchability. Furthermore, the Untouchability Offences Act of 1955 (renamed as the Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1976) considers the practice of untouchability as a criminal offense, and individuals engaging in such practices are subject to legal punishment. According to this Act, anything accessible to the general public should be equally accessible to all Indian citizens. Article 17 is a very important part of the Right to Equality. It not only provides equality but also social justice. Also the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 led to the establishment of special courts to decide the cases related to the commission of offenses under this act. Section 18 of this Act makes the commission of offenses under this Act a non-bailable offense.
In Jai Singh v. Union of IndiaRajasthan High Court and in Devrajiah v. B. Padmana of Madras High Court, the court defined the word untouchability.The court said that ‘The subject matter of Article 17 is not untouchable in its literal or grammatical sense but the ‘practice as it had developed historically in the country’. It refers to the social disabilities imposed on certain classes of persons because of their birth in certain castes. Hence, it does not cover the social boycott of a few individuals or their exclusion from religious services, etc.
In the case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 the Supreme Court held that when the rights under Article 17 are violated by any private individual then it will be the responsibility of the state to take action immediately.
Merely because the aggrieved person could themself protect or enforce their invaded fundamental rights, did not absolve the State from its constitutional obligations.
In State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale, the Supreme Court expressing its concern on the continuance of the practice of untouchability, held that it was an indirect form of slavery is only extension of the caste system. In this case, the accusation against the respondents was that they had forcibly restrained the complainant from taking water from a newly dug-up borewell because they were untouchable.
References
Indian Kanoon
ConstitutionofIndia.net
Blog Ipleaders
Law and Other things
18. Abolition of titles
A “title” refers to an attachment to one’s name, such as a prefix or suffix (e.g., Sir, Nawab, Maharaja). In a democracy, the creation of titles and titular glories is discouraged as it goes against the principles of social equality.
However, it is argued that titles like “Bharat Ratna,” “Padma Vibhushan,” and “Padma Shri” (introduced in 1954) are not prohibited under Article 18 because they signify state recognition of exceptional work by citizens in various fields. It is important to note that Article 18 does not confer any fundamental right but rather imposes restrictions on executive and legislative powers. The conferral of titles is seen as contrary to the fundamental principle of equality guaranteed by Article 14, which ensures equal treatment of all citizens.
In the landmark judgment Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India, AIR 1996, the court held that National awards aren’t titles under clause 1 of Article 18. A committee (High Level Review Committee: chaired by the Vice-President) was set up by the Government in which it states that the awards should be given based on recommendations of names given by various state governments. These recommendations will be reviewed by the Centre government. After this committee, the names will be sent to the Prime Minister’s Office and finally sent to the President for the final verdict. It is important to remember that there are no guidelines given for the Bharat Ratna award.
In the case of Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017), a complaint was lodged in this matter questioning the usage of the term ‘senior advocate’ before the names of the advocates. The Supreme Court ruled that this is not the title, but rather a demarcation, and therefore does not violate Article 18 of the Indian Constitution.ReferencesIndianKanoonConstitutionofIndia.net Social Laws Today
19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.
[Editorial Comment – Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees six fundamental freedoms to every citizen of India. Though all of these six Fundamental Freedoms are not absolute. They contain certain restraints and exceptions within them which are postulated in Article 19(2) to 19(6).
Freedom of Speech and Expression – Article 19(1)(a) grants citizens the right to freely express their thoughts, opinions, and ideas. This includes the freedom to express oneself through speech, writing, printing, visual representations, or any other means. However, reasonable restrictions can be imposed on this right for the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign nations, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offense, or the sovereignty and integrity of Parliament.
The first set of grounds, namely, the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States and public order are all grounds referable to national interest. Whereas the second set of grounds, namely, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offense are all concerned with the interest of the society. However it is the constitutional obligation of the judiciary to ensure that the restrictions imposed by a law on the media are reasonable and relate to the purposes specified in Article 19(2).Because reasonable restrictions contemplated under the Indian Constitution brings the matter in the domain of the court as the question of reasonableness is a question primarily for the Court to decide. Freedom of speech and expression is a crucial right which is recognized by Article 19(l)(a), It has been held to be a basic and indivisible right for a democratic polity.
In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras ,Patanjali Shastri, C.J. observed:“Freedom of speech and of the press lay at the foundation of all democratic organizations, for without free political discussion no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the process of popular government, is possible”The expression ‘Freedom of press’ is part of the ambit of article 19 and it means the right to print and publish without any interference from the state or any other public authority. But this Freedom, like other freedoms, cannot be absolute but is subject to well known exceptions acknowledged in the public interests, which in India are enumerated in Article 19(2) of the constitution.
Thus, in Prabhu Dutt v. Union of India the Supreme Court has held that the right to know news and information regarding administration of the Government is included in the freedom of press. But this right is not absolute and restrictions can be imposed on it in the interest of the society and the individual from which the press obtains information. They can obtain information from an individual when he voluntarily agrees to give such information.
In Bennett Coleman & Co v. Union of India (1972), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the freedom of the press embodies the right of the people to free speech and expression. It was held that “Freedom of the press is both qualitative and quantitative. Freedom lies both in circulation and in content.”
In the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015 Section 66A of the Information Technology Act was challenged. Under this section, there were several arrests which were made due to which a wide outrage was seen in society. The petitioners said that this Article is infringing the Freedom of Speech and Expression. The Supreme Court stroked down this provision saying that this provision is too vague and prone to misuse.
In the State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975), the Supreme Court observed that the right to know is derived from the concept of freedom of speech. The Court further held that the people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries.
Right to speak includes the right to not speak or the right to remain silent. In Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986), the Supreme Court upheld the right to silence of three students who were expelled from school because they refused to sing the National Anthem. The Court held that no person can be compelled to sing the National Anthem if he has genuine conscientious objections based on his religious belief. Hence, the right to speak and the right to express includes the right not to express and to be silent.
Freedom to Assemble Peacefully – Article 19(1)(b) ensures the right to peacefully assemble and hold public meetings or processions without arms. This right allows citizens to come together for various purposes, such as protests, demonstrations, or discussions. However, reasonable restrictions can be imposed on this right in the interests of public order, sovereignty, and integrity of India.
In Himmat Lal v. Police Commissioner, Bombay (1972), the Supreme Court struck down a rule that empowered the police commissioner to impose a total ban on all public meetings and processions. It was held that the state could only make regulations in aid of the right of assembly of citizens and could impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order but no rule could be prescribed prohibiting all meetings or processions altogether.
Freedom to Form Associations or Unions – Article 19(1)(c) guarantees the right to form associations or unions. Citizens have the freedom to form social, cultural, economic, or political associations or unions. This right allows individuals to collectively pursue common goals or interests. However, reasonable restrictions can be imposed on this right in the interests of public order, morality, or the sovereignty and integrity of India.
In Damyanti v. Union of India (1971), the Supreme Court upheld the right of the members of an association to continue the association with its composition as voluntarily agreed upon by the persons forming the association.
Freedom to Move Freely – Article 19(1)(d) ensures the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. Citizens have the liberty to move within the country, reside in any part of India, and settle in any place of their choice. However, reasonable restrictions can be imposed on this right in the interests of public order, security of the State, or the sovereignty and integrity of India.
In Chambara soy v. Union of India (2007), some persons had blocked a road due to which the petitioner was delayed in taking his ailing son to the hospital and his son died on arrival at the hospital. The Supreme Court held that the right of the petitioner to move freely under Article 19(1)(d) has been violated due to the road blockage. The Court held that the State is liable to pay the compensation for the death of the petitioner’s son due to the inaction on the part of the State authorities in removing the aforesaid blockage.
Freedom to Reside and Settle – Article 19(1)(e) guarantees the right to reside and settle in any part of India. Citizens have the freedom to choose their place of residence and settle anywhere within the country. However, reasonable restrictions can be imposed on this right in the interests of public order, protection of scheduled tribes, or the sovereignty and integrity of India.
In the case of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Friends Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.(1995), it was held by the Supreme Court that the right to residence under Article 19(1)(e) includes the right to shelter and to construct houses for that purpose.
Freedom to Practice Profession, Occupation, Trade, or Business – Article 19(1)(g) provides the right to practice any profession, occupation, trade, or business. Citizens have the freedom to choose and engage in their preferred livelihoods. However, reasonable restrictions can be imposed on this right in the interests of the general public, professional qualifications, or the sovereignty and integrity of India.
In the landmark judgment, Chindamanrao v. State of M.P. (AIR 1951), the Central Provinces imposed a ban on the making of Bidis during the Agricultural Seasons. The manufacturing of Bidis used to work as an additional income for the women of the local area. So the act by the government of the Central province was challenged in the Supreme Court. Court decided that the act made by the government is arbitrary and does not fall under the reasonable restrictions.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court inVishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) has observed that the sexual harassment of working women in workplaces violates the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g). In this case, comprehensive guidelines and binding directions were issued by the court to prevent the incidents of sexual harassment of women at workplaces in both public and private sectors.]ReferencesIndianKanoonConstitutionofIndia.netBlog Ipleaders Legal Service India Wikipedia[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, it amended the Clauses (2), (3), and (4) of Article 19. This was done to enable the state to make laws that, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, place reasonable restrictions on the enjoyment of the rights conferred by sub-clauses (a), (b), and (c) of clause 1 of the article.][Editorial comment-The Constitution (Ninety-seventh Amendment) Act, 2011,was proposed to overcome the difficulties faced by Cooperative societies and improve their performance and status in the country. The extensive establishment of cooperatives was envisioned as one of the attempts to achieve social and economic justice and the equitable distribution of the advantages of progress. According to this Amendment, these societies are given constitutional status and are legally protected while also maintaining their autonomous or democratic functioning. The Constitution was amended to require that the states guarantee the autonomy of cooperatives, and as a result, state governments are now required to support the voluntary formation, autonomous decision-making, democratic control, and operation of cooperatives. The Act witnessed many changes such as modification in Part III of Article 19(1)(c) with the insertion of the words “or co-operative societies”, and the addition of Article 43B (working towards enhancing the co-Operative Societies’ Voluntary formation, independent operation, and professional management) and Part IX B to the Indian Constitution. However, the 97th Amendment faced challenges in the High Court of Gujarat as the Parliament didn’t ask for approval from the state legislatures before passing the bill. The ratification/approval is necessary for matters concerning states and since the cooperative societies are a part of the state legislature, ratification was required. On July 20, 2021, the Supreme Court of India declared the 97th Amendment Act Unconstitutional. According to the Supreme Court ratification from states was necessary to pass the amendment which didn’t take place. The Supreme Court also said that the responsibility of Multistate Co-Operative societies is of the Centre while that of the State co-operative societies is of the state. As of the current scenario, parts of the 97th Amendment on cooperatives are struck down.Also Refer][Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, repealed Article 19 (1) (f) and also took out Article 31(1) has been taken out of Part III and made a separate Article 300A in Chapter IV of Part XII. This amendment may have taken away the scope of speedy remedy under Article 32 for the violation of Right to Property because it is no more a Fundamental Right. Making it a legal right under the Constitution serves two purposes: Firstly, it gives emphasis to the value of socialism included in the preamble and secondly, in doing so, it conformed to the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution. Also Refer]
20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences
Article 20(1) prohibits the imposition of retrospective punishment. It states that no person shall be punished for an act that was not an offense at the time it was committed. This provision ensures that individuals cannot be held accountable for actions that were legal when they occurred but were later made illegal by subsequent legislation.
In the landmark judgment, Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal the Supreme Court held that when an act is declared a criminal offense by the legislature and provides penalties for it, such declaration is always prospective and cannot be applied retrospectively as per the provisions of Article 20(1)
However, it is important to note that this clause prohibits only the procedure of sentencing and convicting, not the trial itself. Therefore, a person accused under a particular procedure cannot claim protection under this clause or the doctrine of ex post facto law.
In the case of Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan involving the Narcotics, Drugs, and Psychotropic Substances Act, the court opined that Article 20 prohibits only conviction and punishment under an ex post facto law, not the trial or prosecution itself. Furthermore, a trial conducted under a different procedure from the one existing at the time of the offense does not fall within the scope of this provision and cannot be deemed unconstitutional.
In another significant judgment, Maru Ram Etc. v. Union Of India & Anr (1980 AIR 2147), the Court observed that Article 20(1) also encompasses the principle that penalties for an offense should not be retrospectively increased beyond what existed at the time of the offense.
However, there is an exception to the restriction imposed by this provision. In the case of Rattan Lal v. The State of Punjab, the Supreme Court allowed for retrospective application of criminal laws in situations where the issue at hand concerns the reduction of punishment for the said offense.
Article 20(2) prohibits a person from being prosecuted and punished for the same offense more than once. This principle of double jeopardy prevents individuals from being subjected to multiple trials or punishments for the same offense. Once a person has been acquitted or convicted and punished for a particular offense, they cannot be tried or punished again for the same offense.
In the case of Venkataraman v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India established that this provision deals exclusively with Judicial punishments and provides that no person is prosecuted twice by the judicial authorities. The most crucial landmark judgement came in the case of Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, where the person accused was possessing some amount of gold, which was against lex loci at the time and gold was confiscated by the customs authority. And, later when the person was prosecuted before a criminal court, the court was confronted with the question whether this amounts to Double Jeopardy.
But, the Supreme Court observed that departmental proceedings, i.e. by Customs Authority, in this case, doesn’t amount to trial by a judicial tribunal, thus the proceedings before the criminal court is not barred in this case and the proceedings can go on. In a nutshell Departmental Proceedings are independent of trial by a judicial court or tribunal.
However, the prosecution may happen if the facts are distinct in subsequent proceedings. Same was established by the Supreme Court of India in case of A.A. Mulla v. State of Maharashtra and was observed that; Article 20 (2) would not be attracted in those cases where the facts are distinct in subsequent offence or punishment.
Article 20(3) ensures that no person accused of an offense shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves. This means that an individual cannot be forced to provide evidence or testimony that may incriminate themselves. It is a fundamental right that protects individuals from being compelled to be witnesses in their own criminal prosecution.
Prohibition against self-incrimination could only be put into effect if the person is accused of a criminal offence. This doctrine could not be invoked for cases other than criminal cases. Also, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raja Narayanlal Bansilal vs Maneck Phiroz Mistry, to claim the immunity from being self-incriminated, there must exist a formal accusation against the person and mere general inquiry and investigation don’t form grounds for the same.
These safeguards provided under Article 20 are essential components of a fair and just legal system. They uphold the principles of fairness, protection against self-incrimination, and the prevention of arbitrary or excessive punishment. It’s important to note that these protections are applicable in criminal proceedings and serve as a shield against certain violations of individual rights. However, reasonable restrictions and limitations can be imposed in the interests of public order, security of the State, or the proper administration of justice.ReferencesIndianKanoonBlog IpleadersLawctopusConstitutionofIndia.net
21. Protection of life and personal liberty
No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.Editorial Comment – Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to protection of life and personal liberty. It ensures certain safeguards against arbitrary deprivation of life and liberty.
Article 21 asserts that no person shall be deprived of their life except according to the procedure established by law. This means that every individual has the right to live, and their life cannot be taken away except in accordance with the prescribed legal procedures. The right to life encompasses various aspects, including the right to live with dignity, the right to livelihood, and the right to a healthy environment. Article 21 also protects the personal liberty of individuals. It states that no person shall be deprived of their personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Personal liberty includes the freedom to move freely, the freedom to choose one’s place of residence, and the freedom to engage in any lawful occupation or profession.
In the landmark judgment, A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras, the Supreme Court held that personal liberty means the “liberty of the body” which is freedom from arrest and detention from false detention. The Supreme Court added that the meaning of the word ‘law’ means state made law only. So clearly this was a narrow interpretation of the word Personal freedom and Law. But in later cases, this view was redressed by the Judiciary. In the case of R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970) the court held that the word personal liberty would not only include Article 21 but also includes the 6 Fundamental Freedoms given under Article 19 (1).
In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963, the court adopted a wider meaning of personal liberty and said that it will include all the rights which are given under Article 19(1).
In the landmark judgment Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), Supreme Court held that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 is not limited to mere animal existence but includes the right to live with dignity. The court emphasized that the procedure established by law must be fair, just, and reasonable, and it cannot be arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable.
In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the court recognized the right to livelihood as an integral part of the right to life under Article 21. It held that the eviction of pavement dwellers without providing alternative arrangements would violate their right to life and personal liberty.
In the landmark judgment, Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the supreme court addressed the issue of sexual harassment at the workplace. The court held that the right to a safe and secure working environment is a fundamental right flowing from Article 21. It laid down guidelines to prevent and redress sexual harassment at workplaces until appropriate legislation was enacted.
In, National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India and Ors (2014), The National Legal Services Authority filed a PIL to protect the interests of transgendered persons. The court held that the Gender of a person is to be decided by the person themself after looking into the Right to Life Article. So all the rights which are given to normal people must be given to transgendered people like Public toilets, medical care for transgendered persons and the provisions of reservations under Article 15 and 16 must be extended to them as they classify as a minority section.
In the case, Animal Welfare Board v. A. Nagaraja (2014), rights which are given to animals were up for contention (especially bulls used in Jallikattu festival). In this case, the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) brought the attention of the court towards the cruelty and inhuman behavior which is faced by the animals which are used in the Jallikattu festival.
The court held that they have a duty under the doctrine of ‘parens patriae’ to take care of the rights of animals. Article 51A (g) of the Constitution also gives the principle of compassion towards living beings and animals. So under this case, the Supreme Court ruled that Jallikattu is constitutionally void.
In another landmark judgment, K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) (privacy judgment) the Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right protected under Article 21. The court held that privacy is an essential aspect of personal liberty and dignity and is intrinsic to the entire constitutional scheme.
In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), the court legalized passive euthanasia and recognized the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right under Article 21. The court held that individuals have the right to refuse medical treatment or life support and can make an advance directive specifying their wishes in case of terminal illness.
Article 21 also prohibits arbitrary or unlawful detention. It ensures that no person can be detained without proper legal justification or without following the due process of law. It safeguards against arbitrary arrests and protects individuals from being unlawfully deprived of their freedom. It also encompasses the right to a fair trial. It guarantees that every person accused of an offense shall have the right to a fair and impartial trial, including the right to legal representation, the right to be heard, and the right to present evidence in their defense.
In the case, A.K. Roy v. Union of India (AIR 1982) (NSA case), the Supreme Court discussed whether the provisions of Natural Justice should be applied to the National Security act or not. This Act took away many important rights of a detained person like Right to be represented by a lawyer, Right to cross-examine the detaining authority etc. The court held that Natural justice is important but it cannot be applied in all the acts. It is important to look at the circumstances and the purpose of making the Act. So based on this logic the court upheld the NSA Act (1980).
The interpretation and scope of Article 21 have evolved through various landmark judgments of the Supreme Court, expanding its ambit to include protection against torture, custodial violence, and the right to a clean and healthy environment. It’s important to note that reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the rights guaranteed under Article 21 in the interests of public order, national security, public health, or morality. However, such restrictions must be fair, just, and in accordance with the principles of reasonableness and proportionality.ReferencesIndianKanoon Legal Service India Lawctopus Academike Wikipedia
21A. Right to education
The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.Editorial Comment– Article 21A of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to education as a fundamental right for children between the ages of 6 and 14 years. It was introduced by the 86th Amendment Act of 2002 with the aim of providing free and compulsory education to all children in the specified age group. The amendment makes it the duty of the State to ensure that every child within the specified age group receives compulsory education. It prohibits discrimination and ensures equal opportunities for education. Article 21A guarantees that education provided by the State to children in the specified age group should be free of charge. It aims to remove financial barriers that could hinder access to education. The responsibility for implementing the provisions of Article 21A lies with the respective state governments. They are tasked with ensuring that adequate infrastructure, facilities, and qualified teachers are available to provide quality education to all children.
To give effect to the provisions of Article 21A, the Right to Education (RTE) Act was enacted in 2009. The RTE Act further elaborates on the specifics of free and compulsory education, including the responsibilities of the government, admission processes, curriculum, and standards for schools, and mechanisms for monitoring and enforcing the right to education.ReferencesMinistry of Education [Editorial comment-The Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002, provides certain important provisions to strengthen the educational system of the country. It ensures that children under the age of 14 have the right to free formal education and mandates the state to provide suitable schooling and educational opportunities for them. This amendment is a significant step toward ensuring that all children from the age of six to fourteen receive a free primary education, while also protecting their rights to attain quality education in a safe environment.Also Refer]
22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases
Provided that nothing in this sub-clause shall authorise the detention of any person beyond the maximum period prescribed by any law made by Parliament under sub-clause (b) of clause (7); or
Protection against Arrest and Detention – Article 22 safeguards individuals against arbitrary arrest and detention. It ensures that no person can be arrested or detained without being informed of the grounds for such arrest or detention.
Right to be Presented before Magistrate – Article 22 guarantees that an arrested person must be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of their arrest. This provision aims to prevent unlawful and prolonged detention without proper judicial oversight.
Right to Consult a Legal Practitioner – Article 22 grants the right to an arrested person to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice. This right helps ensure that individuals have proper legal representation during the process of arrest and detention.
Communication of Grounds for Arrest – An arrested person must be informed of the grounds for their arrest and detention. They have the right to know the reasons behind their arrest, enabling them to effectively exercise their legal rights.
Preventive Detention – Article 22 also addresses the issue of preventive detention, which allows the authorities to detain individuals for preventive reasons, such as the maintenance of public order or national security. It imposes certain additional safeguards, such as the requirement for the grounds of detention to be communicated and the provision for a review by an advisory board.
It’s important to note that Article 22 provides certain exceptions during times of emergency, such as during a proclamation of Emergency by the President of India. In such circumstances, certain restrictions on the rights and safeguards under Article 22 may be imposed.
In the case, D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), A Public Interest Litigation was filed by Dr Dilip Kumar Basu related to a case of Custodial violence. The Supreme Court laid down strict guidelines related to custodial violence and deaths. These guidelines are to be followed in all cases of arrest and detention until legal provisions are made for the safeguard of a person in custody.ReferencesIndianKanoon Social Law Today Academic Article
[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, repealed Article 19 (1) (f) and also took out Article 31(1) has been taken out of Part III and made a separate Article 300A in Chapter IV of Part XII. This amendment may have taken away the scope of speedy remedy under Article 32 for the violation of Right to Property because it is no more a Fundamental Right. Making it a legal right under the Constitution serves two purposes: Firstly, it gives emphasis to the value of socialism included in the preamble and secondly, in doing so, it conformed to the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution. Also Refer]
23. Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour
The prohibition on forced labor does not apply to work required as a part of a compulsory service for public purposes, such as military service, or in cases of emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community.
Article 23 emphasizes the importance of protecting individual freedom and dignity, ensuring that no person is subjected to exploitation or degrading conditions of work. It safeguards the right to receive fair and reasonable remuneration for work done.
The objective of Article 23 is to eradicate practices that exploit and subjugate individuals, particularly vulnerable sections of society. It upholds the principles of equality, justice, and respect for human rights.
It’s important to note that to address the issues related to trafficking, forced labor, and other forms of exploitation, the Indian government has enacted specific laws such as the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, Bonded Labor System (Abolition) Act, and other relevant legislation to provide legal frameworks and mechanisms for preventing and combating such offenses.
In, Sanjit Roy v. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1983, court held that payment of wages which is lower than the minimum wage to a person who is working in famine relief work is against the provisions of Article 23. The State cannot take advantage of the situation of the person who is engaged in famine relief work.
In, Deena v. Union of India, AIR 1983, the court held that the labor which is taken from prisoners without paying them proper remuneration of their work is against the provisions of Article 23. They are entitled to reasonable wages according to their work.
In, Vishal Jeet v. Union of India (1990), the Supreme Court emphasized that the right to receive timely and fair wages is an essential component of the prohibition on forced labor under Article 23. The court held that delayed payment or non-payment of wages could be considered as forced labor, violating the constitutional rights of workers.
Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal, the Court directed for the rehabilitation of the sex workers. The Supreme Court also directed to form the Sex workers rehabilitation panel and directed the State and Central Government to provide funds for the working of this panel.ReferencesIndianKanoon United Nations Blog Ipleaders Lawctopus
24. Prohibition of employment of children in factories, etc.
No child below the age of fourteen years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or engaged in any other hazardous employment.Editorial Comment – Article 24 of the Indian Constitution pertains to the prohibition of child labor. It aims to protect the rights and welfare of children by prohibiting their employment in certain hazardous occupations or processes.
Article 24 prohibits the employment of children below the age of 14 years in any factory, mine, or hazardous occupation. The intention is to prevent exploitation, safeguard the health and development of children, and ensure their access to education. The article allows for certain exceptions where child labor may be permitted, such as engaging children in non-hazardous family-based work, work as part of a school’s curriculum, or in any other harmless or innocent occupation.
This article also empowers the government to enact legislation to determine the specific occupations and processes that are considered hazardous for children. The government has the authority to impose necessary restrictions and regulations to enforce this provision effectively.
Article 24 is closely linked to Article 21A, which guarantees the right to education for children between the ages of 6 and 14 years. By prohibiting child labor, Article 24 promotes the realization of the right to education and ensures that children have the opportunity to develop their potential and skills through proper schooling.
In this landmark case, M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1997), the Supreme Court addressed the issue of child labor in the firecracker industry. The court prohibited the employment of children in hazardous industries, including the manufacture of firecrackers. It emphasized the importance of enforcing Article 24 to protect the rights and welfare of children and directed the government to take necessary measures to eradicate child labor.
In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982), The Supreme Court dealt with the issue of child labor in matchbox factories. The court recognized that child labor in hazardous industries was a violation of their fundamental rights. It held that the prohibition on child labor under Article 24 must be effectively enforced to ensure the well-being and development of children.
In Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2011), the Supreme Court addressed the issue of child labor in various industries, including carpet weaving. The court reiterated the importance of implementing and enforcing the provisions of Article 24 to eradicate child labor and protect the rights of children. It directed the government to take measures for the rescue, rehabilitation, and education of children involved in labor.ReferencesIndianKanoonConstitutionofIndia.net Legal Service India Academic Article
25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion
Explanation I.—The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.Explanation II.—In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.Editorial Comment – Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of religion. It encompasses various aspects related to the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion. The freedom of religion under this article is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in the interest of public order, morality, and health. This means that while individuals have the right to practice their religion, it should not disrupt the harmony of society or infringe upon the well-being of others.
Article 25 distinguishes between religious practices and secular activities associated with religious institutions. The state has the authority to regulate or restrict secular activities that may be associated with religious practices, such as social reforms, economic activities, and other activities unrelated to the core aspects of religion. It also includes the right of religious denominations or any section thereof to manage their own religious affairs, including establishing and maintaining religious institutions, as long as they do not violate any other laws or public order.
In the case of Vaishno Devi Shrine, Board v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1997, In this case, the validity of Jammu and Kashmir Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988 was challenged. This act was made for better management and governance of the temple. This act was challenged based on a violation of the Fundamental right of Religion of the petitioner. It abolished the hereditary post of the priests and gave the power to the state to make the appointment of priests. The Supreme Court held that the service of a priest is a secular activity and it can be regulated by the state under clause 2 of Article 25.
In the case, Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay (1962), the Supreme Court addressed the issue of religious freedom and held that the freedom to manage religious affairs includes the right to determine the essential practices of a religious denomination. The court emphasized that the state should not interfere in matters of religious faith unless such practices are considered immoral or contrary to public order.
In the case, Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954), Supreme Court dealt with the power of the state to intervene in the administration of religious institutions. The Supreme Court held that while the state can regulate and supervise the administration of religious institutions, it should not interfere with the essential religious practices and customs of a denomination unless they are deemed to be socially harmful or against public order.
In the case of Acharya Jadishwaranand Avadhuta v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, 1984 (Anand Marga Case), the Supreme Court held that the Tandava dance which is followed by the community of Anand Marga is not an essential part of the religion. So an order can be passed for the prohibition of Tandava dance in public and it will not violate Article 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution.
In the case of Moulana Mufti Sayeed Mohd. Norrur Rehman Barkariq v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1999, the High Court said that the restriction imposed by the state on the use of Microphones and loudspeakers at the time of Azaan is not against the Article 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution.
In the case, Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India, the Supreme Court dealt with the question of showing respect to the national anthem. The Supreme Court held that every citizen or persons are bound to show respect to the National Anthem of India, whenever played or sung on specific occasions the only exemption is granted to disabled people. It further held that playing of the national anthem in cinema halls is not mandatory but optional and directory.
In the case, Shayara Bano v. Union of India (Triple Talaq case), a 5 judges bench of the Supreme Court discussed whether the practice of Talaq-e-biddat (triple talaq) is a matter of faith to the Muslims and whether it is constituent to their personal law. By a 3:2 majority, the court ruled that the practice of Talaq-e-biddat is illegal and unconstitutional. The court also held that an injunction would continue to bar the Muslim male from practicing triple talaq till a legislation is enacted for that purpose.ReferencesIndianKanoon ConstitutionofIndia.net Blog Ipleaders Wikipedia
26. Freedom to manage religious affairs
Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right—
Article 26(a) Right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes.The right to establish and maintain religious institutions is given to every religious institution. The word establishes and maintains must be read together. So it is important for a religious institution to first establish a religious institution and only then the right to maintain an institution is to be given to that group. It is to be noted that the right to maintain an institution will also include the right to administer it.
In the case of TMA Pai Foundation v. The State of Karnataka, AIR 2003, the court held that the right to establish and maintain a religious institution is given to every religion. It can be a majority religion or even a minority religion.
Article 26(b) Right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. Every religious institution has the right to manage its own affairs in the matters of religion. The State has got no right to interfere in these matters unless it is affecting the public order, morality and health of the citizens.
In the case of S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, AIR 1983, the validity of the Aurobindo (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1980 was challenged on the ground that it was violative of their right to freedom of religion. Sri Aurobindo founded the philosophy of cosmic salvation. He and his disciples formed the Aurobindo Society. The court decided that the sayings of Sri Aurobindo were not religious institutions. So the taking over of the Aurobindo Ashram by the Government did not infringe Article 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution.
Article 26(c) details the right to own and acquire movable and immovable property. The state can regulate the property of a religious denomination by law.
Article 26(d) is on the right to administer such property in accordance with law. The State can regulate the administration of the property belonging to the religious entity. It is also important to understand that the state cannot altogether take away the right of the administration from the religious institution.
In the case of Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1972, the hereditary post of Archakas and Mathadhipatis of Hindu temples in Tamil Nadu challenged the validity of Tamil Nadu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1970 under Article 32 on the violation of Right to Freedom. The Supreme Court decided that the post of Archaka is secular. The appointment of Archaka is not a religious practice nor is it an integral part of a religion. So the court upheld the appointment of Archakas according to prevailing usage and custom. The right to succession also remained valid.
In the case of N. Adithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board, 2002, it was challenged if non-Brahmins can be appointed as a pujari in a temple. The Supreme Court held that the Brahmins do not have the monopoly over-performing puja in a temple. The court also added that non-Brahmins can be appointed as a pujari as long as he is well versed in his job.ReferencesIndianKanoonWikipediaBlog Ipleaders
27. Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion
No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.Editorial Comment – Article 27 ensures that individuals are not forced to contribute through taxes towards the promotion or maintenance of any specific religion or religious denomination. It upholds the principle of religious neutrality and prevents the use of public funds for the advancement of a particular religious belief or institution. The aim of Article 27 is to maintain a secular state where the government remains impartial towards all religions and does not favor or promote any specific religion using public funds. It ensures that taxpayers’ money is not utilized to endorse or support any particular religious agenda, thus preserving the religious freedom and equality of citizens.
In Sri Jagannath v. the State of Orissa, AIR 1954, the court upheld the fee which was imposed. The court stated that the annual contribution was a fee and not a tax. This payment was demanded to meet the expenses of the Commissioner and his office which was set up for the administration of the religious institution.
In Nasima Khatun v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1981, the Bengal Wakfs Act was amended in 1973. Through this amendment, the contribution was to be asked by people for the education for economically weaker and meritorious students. The court said that this tax does not fall under Article 27 as a tax but it is a kind of Fee, which is not a prerogative of Article 27.
In P.M. Bhargava v. University Grants Commission, AIR 2004, the court said that the teaching of Jyotish Vigyan in a University by University Grants Commission is not religious teaching. This is a secular activity. So it does not fall under Article 27 of the Indian Constitution.ReferencesIndianKanoonConstitutionofIndia.netLegal Service India
28. Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions
No religious instruction can be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained by state funds. This ensures that public educational institutions funded by the government remain secular and do not impart religious teachings.
In educational institutions that are not wholly maintained by state funds, religious instruction is allowed. However, it requires the consent of parents or guardians. Students attending these institutions have the right to choose whether or not to receive religious instruction. In educational institutions that are not wholly maintained by state funds, students belonging to a particular religion have the right to attend religious worship or religious instruction conducted by the institution.
The purpose of Article 28 is to maintain the secular character of educational institutions funded by the state and to uphold the freedom of individuals to pursue their own religious beliefs or choose not to participate in religious activities.
In Aruna Roy v. Union of India, AIR 2002, a PIL was filed under Article 32 wherein it was contended by the petitioner that the National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCFSE) is violative of the provisions of the constitution. It was contended that it was anti-secular and it should be set aside. The court ruled that there is no violation of Article 28 and there is also no prohibition to study religious philosophy for having value-based life in a society.ReferencesIndianKanoon Blog Ipleaders
29. Protection of interests of minorities
Any section of citizens residing in India having a distinct language, script, or culture of its own has the right to conserve and promote its language, script, or culture. This provision ensures the preservation and development of the unique identity and heritage of minority communities. Minority communities, whether based on religion or language, have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. This enables minorities to establish educational institutions that cater to their specific cultural and linguistic needs. Article 29 also prohibits discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of religion, race, caste, language, or any of them with respect to admission into educational institutions maintained or aided by the state.
In the case of D.A.V. College, Jalandhar v. The State of Punjab (1971), and the Supreme Court held that setting up of University and teaching Punjabi language is not infringing clause 1 of Article 29.
In the case, St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi (1992), the Supreme Court dealt with the question of whether minority educational institutions can reserve seats for students belonging to their own community. The court ruled that minority institutions have the right to admit students from their own community, provided the admission process is fair and transparent.
In the case, T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of the right of minority educational institutions to establish and administer their institutions. The court upheld the autonomy of minority institutions in matters of admission and administration, emphasizing that they have the right to preserve their own character and identity.
In the case, Animal Welfare Board v. Union of India (Jallikattu case), the Supreme Court dealt with the question whether the sport of Jallikattu was protected as a cultural right under Article 29 of the Constitution of India? The Supreme Court upheld the practice of Jallikattu, as permitted by the 2017 Tamil Nadu Amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The five-judge Bench in 2023 overruled the view taken by a two-judge Bench of the court in its 2014 ruling in Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, banning such sports including Jallikattu.ReferencesIndianKanoon News Article SC Observer Blog Ipleaders
30. Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions
While minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institutions, they must still adhere to reasonable regulations that the state may impose in the interest of maintaining standards of education, ensuring welfare, or preventing maladministration.
The purpose of Article 30 is to protect the educational rights of religious and linguistic minorities, allowing them to preserve and promote their distinct culture, language, and religious identity through educational institutions of their choice. It recognizes the importance of minority communities in the nation’s diversity and provides them with the freedom to establish and manage educational institutions that cater to their specific needs and aspirations. Article 31(A) was added as part of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment which states that in case of any property acquired by the government of an educational institution then it is the duty of the government to give appropriate compensation.
In this case, St. Xavier’s College v. State of Gujarat (1974), the Supreme Court clarified that minority educational institutions have the right to admit students belonging to their own community and can give preference to them while making admissions, as long as the admission process is fair and transparent.
In D.A.V. College, Jullundur v. State of Punjab (1971), the Supreme Court held that minority institutions have the right to appoint teachers of their choice, subject to their qualifications and suitability. It emphasized the importance of preserving the minority character of such institutions.
In this case, S.P. Mittal v. Union of India 1983, the court discussed Auroville, a township formed on the ideals of Sri Aurobindo. Tamil Nadu government took management of this township and filed a presidential ordinance which later on became The Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1980.
Seeing that the government took control of a ‘religious’ enterprise, the Constitutional validity of the Act was challenged on 4 grounds. One of the grounds was that it was violative of Article 29 and 30. It was held by the bench that the aforesaid Act does not violate Article 29 and 30. The court held that it, in no way curtailed their right or prevented any citizen from conserving its own language, script or culture and thus was not violative of Article 29.
Also in this case, in order to seek protection under Article 30, one must prove that they are a linguistic or religious minority and the institution in question was established by them. Considering that Auroville was not religious and was founded on the ideology of Sri Aurobindo, they could not seek protection under these articles.
In the landmark case T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002), the Supreme Court dealt with the autonomy of minority educational institutions and their right to establish and administer institutions of their choice. The Supreme Court held that minority institutions have the right to administer their affairs, including the right to appoint staff, but they must still operate within certain reasonable regulations imposed by the state.ReferencesIndianKanoonConstitutionofIndia.netBlog Ipleaders IndianKanoon[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, repealed Article 19 (1) (f) and also took out Article 31(1) has been taken out of Part III and made a separate Article 300A in Chapter IV of Part XII. This amendment may have taken away the scope of speedy remedy under Article 32 for the violation of Right to Property because it is no more a Fundamental Right. Making it a legal right under the Constitution serves two purposes: Firstly, it gives emphasis to the value of socialism included in the preamble and secondly, in doing so, it conformed to the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution. Also Refer]
31. Compulsory acquisition of property [REPEALED]
[Rep. by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 , section. 6 (w.e.f. 20.6.1979).][Editorial Comment – Article 31 of the Indian Constitution was repealed and replaced by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act in 1978. The original Article 31 dealt with the right to property, but it was repealed and replaced by Article 300A.
Article 300A states that no person shall be deprived of his or her property except by the authority of law. It provides protection to individuals against arbitrary deprivation of their property by the state. It ensures that if the state acquires private property for public purposes, it must do so in accordance with the law and provide fair compensation to the affected individuals.]
31A. Saving of laws providing for acquisition of estates, etc.
[After Article 31 of the Constitution, the following article shall be inserted through Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951]
shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred byarticle 14 or article 19:Provided that where such law is a law made by the Legislature of a State, the provisions of this article shall not apply thereto unless such law, having been reserved for the consideration of the President, has received his assent:Provided further that where any law makes any provision for the acquisition by the State of any estate and where any land comprised therein is held by a person under his personal cultivation, it shall not be lawful for the State to acquire any portion of such land as is within the ceiling limit applicable to him under any law for the time being in force or any building or structure standing thereon or appurtenant thereto, unless the law relating to the acquisition of such land, building or structure, provides for payment of compensation at a rate which shall not be less than the market value thereof.
[Editorial Comment– The Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, The entire Article 31A was realized to be unassailable based on stare decisis, a quietus that should not allow being disturbed. This was declared during the Minerva mills vs Union of India case. The First Amendment in which Article 31A was introduced. While the Fourth Amendment which substituted new clauses to this Article has been held constitutional, in Waman Rao and I R Coelho case. Section 3 of the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955 substituted a new clause (1), sub-clauses (a) to (e) for the original clause (1) with retrospective effect. It does not violate any of the basic or essential features of the Constitution or its basic structure. It was held valid and constitutional within the constituent power of the Parliament of India under the Constitution. ]}}[Editorial Comment-The Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, modifies article 31A and schedule 9 of the Indian Constitution. This revision prohibited the acquisition of land used for personal agriculture unless a price equal to the property’s market value was paid. In addition, 44 more Acts were added to the ninth schedule.][Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, repealed Article 19 (1) (f) and also took out Article 31(1) has been taken out of Part III and made a separate Article 300A in Chapter IV of Part XII. This amendment may have taken away the scope of speedy remedy under Article 32 for the violation of Right to Property because it is no more a Fundamental Right. Making it a legal right under the Constitution serves two purposes: Firstly, it gives emphasis to the value of socialism included in the preamble and secondly, in doing so, it conformed to the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution. Also Refer]
31B. Validation of certain Acts and Regulations
[After Article 31-A of the Constitution, the following article 31-B shall be inserted through Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951]Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in article 31A, none of the Acts and Regulations specified in the Ninth Schedule nor any of the provisions thereof shall be deemed to be void, or ever to have become void, on the ground that such Act, Regulation or provision is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by any provisions of this Part, and notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court or tribunal to the contrary, each of the said Acts and Regulations shall, subject to the power of any competent Legislature to repeal or amend it, continue in force.[Editorial comment – In the case of I R Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007): It was held that all laws (including those in the Ninth Schedule) would be open to Judicial Review if they violated the basic structure of the constitution. The laws placed under Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973 shall be open to challenge in court if they violated fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution. It was further held that if the constitutional validity of any law under the ninth schedule has been upheld before, in future it cannot be challenged again.]
31C. Saving of laws giving effect to certain directive principles
Notwithstanding anything contained in article 13, no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by article 14 or article 19 and no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy:Provided that where such law is made by the Legislature of a State, the provisions of this article shall not apply thereto unless such law, having been reserved for the consideration of the President, has received his assent.[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Twenty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, this amendment would also to insert a new clause 31(C) in the Constitution, which would prevent a bill from being challenged in the Court, either under Article 14 (equality before the law), Article 19 (right to property, freedom of association, speech, religion etc.) or Article 31 (on deprivation of law except under authority of law), if Parliament certified that the bill was intended to ensure equitable distribution of material resources or to prevent concentration of economic power.Important Verdict-Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union Of India] The Court also held that a law which seeks to acquire or requisition property for public purposes must satisfy the requirement of Article 19 (1)(f). The 25th Amendment sought to overcome the restrictions imposed on the government by this ruling.Also refer]][Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, repealed Article 19 (1) (f) and also took out Article 31(1) has been taken out of Part III and made a separate Article 300A in Chapter IV of Part XII. This amendment may have taken away the scope of speedy remedy under Article 32 for the violation of Right to Property because it is no more a Fundamental Right. Making it a legal right under the Constitution serves two purposes: Firstly, it gives emphasis to the value of socialism included in the preamble and secondly, in doing so, it conformed to the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution. Also Refer]
31D. Saving of laws in respect of anti-national activities [Repealed]
[After article 31C of the Constitution and before the sub-heading “Right to Constitutional Remedies”, the following article shall be inserted through Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976]Notwithstanding anything contained in article 13, no law providing for-(a)the prevention or prohibition of anti-national activities; or(b)the prevention of formation of, or the prohibition of, anti-national associations,shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by, article 14, article 19 or article 31.
[Article 31D of the Constitution shall be omitted.][Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Third Amendment) Act, 1977, this amendment fundamental rights law that was passed during the Emergency. By eliminating Article 31D, it restores civil liberties. Under the cover of anti-national activity prevention legislation, this gave Parliament of India the authority to restrict even legal union activity. Also Refer]
32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
Article 32 grants every individual the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. This means that if someone believes their fundamental rights have been violated, they can approach the Supreme Court directly for relief. It also ensures that not only do individuals have the right to move the Supreme Court, but the Court also has the power to issue appropriate orders, directions, or writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court can issue five types of writs under Article 32:
Habeas Corpus: To ensure the release of a person who has been unlawfully detained.
When Article 21 was suspended during the National Emergency, it was held in Addl. District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shukla (Habeas Corpus Case) that an order of preventive detention could not be challenged even if it violated the parent Act (i.e, the Act relating to preventive detention). The 44th Amendment, 1978, has provided that Article 21, relating to personal liberty cannot be suspended even during an emergency.
The writ of Habeas Corpus is a check on the governmental powers to curtail the liberty of a person; its fundamental purpose is to ensure timely review of illegal detention. The scope and extent of this writ is enunciated by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande. The Court stated that the writ of habeas corpus has been described as a “constitutional privilege or the first security of civil liberty” as it provides a speedy remedy against illegal detention. By the virtue of this writ, the Court directs the authority which has detained a person to produce the body of the person before the Court so that it can assess the legitimacy of the arrest or detention.
Mandamus: To direct a public official or authority to perform a duty they are legally bound to perform.
In the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, the court entailed that a writ cannot be issued against the President of India for fixing the number of judges in High Courts and filling vacancies. In E.A. Co-operative Society v. Maharastra, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1449 case the Court opined that the writ of mandamus can be issued when the government denies to itself a jurisdiction which it undoubtedly has under the law
In Bombay Municipality v. Advance Builders, AIR 1972 SC 793 case, Bombay Municipality had prepared a town planning scheme which had been also approved by the State Government. However, no action was taken for a long time. The Court opined that the writ of mandamus can be issued where an authority vested with a power improperly refuses to exercise it and directed the municipality to implement a planning scheme.
In State of West Bengal v. Nuruddin(1998) 8 SCC 143 case, the Supreme Court held the writ of mandamus is a personal action where the respondent has not done the duty they were prescribed to do by law. The performance of the duty is the right of the applicant.
In The Praga Tools Corporation v. C.V. Imanual, 1969 and Sohanlal v. Union of India, (1957) the Supreme Court held that mandamus might under certain circumstances lie against a private individual if it is established that he has colluded with a public authority.
Then, in the case of Manjula Manjori v. Director of Public Instruction, the publisher of a book had applied for the writ of mandamus against the Director of Public Instruction for the inclusion of his book in the list of books which were approved as text-books in schools. But the writ was not allowed as the matter was completely within the discretion of D.I.P and he was not bound to approve the book.
In the case of Binny Ltd. & Anr v. V. Sadasivan & Ors (2005), the Supreme Court laid down the scope of mandamus. It stated that a writ of mandamus is not applicable against any private wrong. It can be issued only when any public authority exercises its duty unlawfully or refuses to perform its duty within the ambit of the law.
In the case of Ramakrishna Mission v. Kago Kunya (2019), The Supreme Court ruled that where a contract is of private nature or has no connection with any public authority, it does not fall within the purview of the writ of mandamus.
Prohibition: To prevent a lower court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction.
In, Brij Khandelwal v. India (1975) the Delhi High Court refused to issue a prohibition against the Central Government from engaging in a boundary dispute agreement with Sri Lanka. The judgment was founded on the basis that there is no bar against the government performing executive or administrative duties. With the idea of natural justice and the growth of the concept of fairness, there is no longer a tolerable view, even in administrative tasks. If any of the grounds on which the writ of prohibition is issued is present, the writ can now be issued to anybody, regardless of the nature of the duty fulfilled by it. Prohibition is currently considered as a broad remedy for judicial control of impacting quasi-judicial as well as administrative actions.
In the case, S. Govind Menon v. Union of India (1967) a Writ of prohibition was issued by a higher court, namely the Kerala High Court, to a lower court in order to take over jurisdiction that was not initially vested, or in other words, to compel lower courts to retain their jurisdictional limitations. The writ can be issued when there is an excess of jurisdiction as well as when there is an absence of jurisdiction.
In the case, Hari Vishnu v. Syed Ahmed Ishaque (1955) dealt with distinctions between writs of prohibition and certiorari. The verdict, in this case, distinguished between certiorari and prohibition writs and said that when the lower court issues a decision, the petitioner must file a certiorari petition since prohibition writs can only be submitted when judgment has not yet been given.
In this case, Prudential Capital Markets Ltd v. The State of A.P. and others, (2000) it was questionable whether the prohibition writ could be issued against the district forum/state commission which had already passed judgments in the depositors’ consumer cases. The Court held that after the execution of the order, the writ of prohibition cannot be issued, the judgment can neither be prevented nor stopped.
Certiorari: To quash an order passed by a lower court, tribunal, or authority.
In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors., the Supreme Court has explained the meaning, ambit and scope of the writ of Certiorari. Also, in this it was explained that Certiorari is always available against inferior courts and not against equal or higher courts, i.e., it cannot be issued by a High Court against any High Court or benches much less to the Supreme Court and any of its benches.
Then in the case of T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa & Anr., it was held by the constitution bench that certiorari may and is generally granted when a court has acted (i) without jurisdiction or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction.
In Hari Bishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque the Supreme Court said that “the court issuing certiorari to quash, however, could not substitute its own decision on the merits or give directions to be complied with by the court or tribunal. Its work was destructive, it simply wiped out the order passed without jurisdiction, and left the matter there.” In Naresh S. Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra , it was said that High Court’s judicial orders are open to being corrected by certiorari and that writ is not available against the High Court.
Quo Warranto: To inquire into the legality of a person’s claim to a public office.
In the case of G.D. Karkare v. T.L. Shevde, the High Court of Nagpur observed that “In proceedings for a writ of quo-warranto, the applicant does not seek to enforce any right of his as such nor does he complain of any non-performance of duty towards him. What is in question is the right of the non-applicant to hold the office and an order that is passed is an order ousting him from that office.”
In the case of Bharati Reddy v. The State Of Karnataka (2018), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a writ of quo warranto cannot be issued based on assumptions, inferences, or speculations concerning the fact of accomplishment of qualifying conditions. There must be an establishment of the fact that a public officer is abusing lawful powers not vested to him within the public authority.
Direct Access to Supreme Court: Unlike Article 226, which pertains to the High Courts and enables individuals to seek writs for enforcement of their fundamental rights, Article 32 provides a direct avenue to the Supreme Court for this purpose.
Suspension During Emergency: During a proclamation of Emergency, the right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 can be suspended. However, the suspension does not extend to fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 (protections in case of conviction and protection of life and personal liberty, respectively).
ReferencesLegal Service IndiaThe Legal QuotientBlog Ipleaders
32A. Constitutional validity of State laws not to be considered in proceedings under article 32 [Repealed]
Notwithstanding anything in article 32, the Supreme Court shall not consider the constitutional validity of any State law in any proceedings under that article unless the constitutional validity of any Central law is also in issue in such proceedings.[Rep . b y the Constitution (Forty-third Amendment) Act, 1977 , section 3 (w .e.f . 13. 4. 1978)][Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Third Amendment) Act, 1977, Article 32(A) of the Constitution said that the Supreme Court would not look at the constitutionality of state laws during writ proceedings to enforce Fundamental Rights. The said article has been omitted.Also Refer][Any proceedings pending before the Supreme Court under article 32 of the Constitution immediately before the commencement of this Act may be dealt with by the Supreme Court as if the said article 32A had been omitted with effect on and from the 1st day of February, 1977.]
33. Power of Parliament to modify the rights conferred by this Part in their application to Forces, etc.
Parliament may, by law, determine to what extent any of the rights conferred by this Part shall, in their application to,-
[[[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Fiftieth Amendment) Act, 1984, dealt with the modification of Article 33 majorly. The Act has been amended to include employees working for the State for purposes of intelligence and counterintelligence bureaus, as well as those hired for telecommunication systems related to any Force, bureau, or organization. This amendment was made to ensure that employees perform their duties properly and maintain discipline. The amendment recognizes the importance of maintaining proper performance and discipline in these organizations.Also Refer]
34. Restriction on rights conferred by this Part while martial law is in force in any area
Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part, Parliament may by law indemnify any person in the service of the Union or of a State or any other person in respect of any act done by him in connection with the maintenance or restoration of order in any area within the territory of India where martial law was in force or validate any sentence passed, punishment inflicted, forfeiture ordered or other act done under martial law in such area.
35. Legislation to give effect to the provisions of this Part
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,—
and Parliament shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of this Constitution, make laws for prescribing punishment for the acts referred to in sub-clause (ii);
Explanation.—In this article, the expression “law in force” has the same meaning as in article 372.
35A. Saving of laws with respect to permanent residents and their rights. —
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, no existing law in force in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and no law hereafter enacted by the Legislature of the State:
[Editorial Note-Article 370 of the Constitution of India provided a special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, granting it a degree of autonomy within the Indian union. Article 370 was incorporated into the Constitution of India as a temporary provision, with the intention of providing a framework for negotiations between the Indian government and the leadership of Jammu and Kashmir to determine the state’s final political status. This was done through the instrument of a Presidential Order in 1954, which extended various provisions of the Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir, subject to certain modifications. Article 370 was incorporated into the Constitution of India as a temporary provision, with the intention of providing a framework for negotiations between the Indian government and the leadership of Jammu and Kashmir to determine the state’s final political status. This was done through the instrument of a Presidential Order in 1954, which extended various provisions of the Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir, subject to certain modifications. Article 370 and Article 35A were closely linked in terms of their impact on the constitutional and legal status of Jammu and Kashmir. Article 370 was the constitutional provision that granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, while Article 35A was a legal provision that flowed from Article 370 and gave the state of Jammu and Kashmir the power to define who is a “permanent resident” of the state, and to confer special rights and privileges to these residents. Article 35A was added to the Indian Constitution through a Presidential Order in 1954, which was issued under the authority of Article 370. The provision allowed the Jammu and Kashmir state legislature to define permanent residents of the state and provide them with special rights and privileges, such as the right to own property, access to government jobs, and scholarships. The provision also prohibited non-permanent residents from acquiring any of these rights or privileges. In April 2018, the Supreme Court of India ruled that Article 370 had attained permanency since the state constituent assembly has ceased to exist. To overcome this legal challenge, the Indian government instead rendered Article 370 as ‘Inoperative’ even though it still exists in the constitution. On 5 August, issued a Presidential Order C.O. 272; the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019 which superseded the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954. This in effect meant that the separate Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir stood inoperative, and a single constitution now applied to all the Indian states. The order was issued using the third clause of Article 370, which authorized the President of India to declare the article inoperative with exceptions and modifications, if recommended by the (non-existent) state constituent assembly to do so. To circumvent the legal issue of the non-existent state constituent assembly, the President used the Clause (1) of Article 370, which conferred him with the power to modify the Indian Constitution on subjects related to Jammu and Kashmir. So he first added a new clause to Article 367, which deals with interpretation of the Constitution. He replaced the phrase ‘Constituent Assembly of the State’ with ‘Legislative Assembly of the State’. Since the state legislative assembly has been suspended, the order says that any reference to the legislative assembly will be construed as a reference to the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir. The governor is an appointee of the Central government. Therefore, the Indian Parliament now functions for the state legislative assembly.]
Part IV – Directive Principles of State Policy
36. Definition
In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, “the State” has the same meaning as in Part III.
37. Application of the principles contained in this Part
The provisions contained in this Part shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of (he Stale to apply these principles in making laws.
38. State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people
39. Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State
The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing–
[In article 39 of the Constitution, for clause (f), the following clause shall be substituted through Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976]
[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, New DPSPs (Directive Principles of State Policy) had been added to the existing list, where it secure opportunities for the healthy development of children. Important Verdict-Minerva Mills Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. Also Refer]
39A. Equal justice and free legal aid
[After article 39 of the Constitution, the following article shall be inserted through Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976]The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976,New DPSPs (Directive Principles of State Policy) had been added to the existing list, where to promote equal justice and to provide free legal aid to the poor. Important Verdict-Minerva Mills Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. Also Refer]
40. Organisation of village panchayats
The State shall take steps to organize village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-government.
41. Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases
The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want.
42. Provision for just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief
The State shall make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief.
43. Living wage, etc., for workers
The State shall endeavour to secure, by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other way, to all workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to promote cottage industries on an individual or co-operative basis in rural areas.
43A. Participation of workers in management of industries
[After article 43 of the Constitution, the following article shall be inserted Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976]The State shall take steps, by suitable legislation or in any other way, to secure the participation of workers in the management of undertakings, establishments or other organisations engaged in any industry.[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, New DPSPs (Directive Principles of State Policy) had been added to the existing list, where To take steps to secure the participation of workers in the management of industries. Important Verdict-Minerva Mills Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. Also Refer]
43B. Promotion of cooperative societies
The State shall endeavour to promote voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control and professional management of co-operative societies.[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Ninety-seventh Amendment) Act, 2011,addition of Article 43B to the Constitution. This article mainly deals with the development of Cooperative societies. It says that the state shall strive to promote the voluntary formation, democratic control, and professional management of cooperative societies. Also Refer]
44. Uniform civil code for the citizens
The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.
45. Provision for free and compulsory education for children
The State shall endeavour to provide, within a period of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years.
46. Promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections
The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.
47. Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health
The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.
48. Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry
The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.
48A. Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life
[After article 48 of the Constitution, the following article shall be inserted Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976]The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, New DPSPs (Directive Principles of State Policy) had been added to the existing list, where to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard forests and wildlife. Important Verdict-Minerva Mills Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. Also Refer]
49. Protection of monuments and places and objects of national importance
It shall be the obligation of the State to protect every monument or place or object of artistic or historic interests,declared by or under law made by Parliament to be of national importance, from spoilation, disfigurement, destruction, removal, disposal or export, as the case may be.
50. Separation of judiciary from executive
The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.
51. Promotion of international peace and security
The State shall endeavour to–
Part IVA – Fundamental Duties
51A. Fundamental duties
[After Part IV of the Constitution, the following Part shall be inserted Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976]It shall be the duty of every citizen of India–
[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, defined the 10 Fundamental Duties of Citizens. This amendment was in line with the Swaran Singh Committee modifications.Important Verdict-Minerva Mills Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. Also Refer]
Part V – The Union
52. The President of India
There shall be a President of India.
53. Executive power of the Union
54. Election of President
The President shall be elected by the members of an electoral college consisting of–
Explanation.–In this article and in article 55, “State” includes the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the Union Territory of Pondicherry.[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Seventieth Amendment) Act, 1992, incorporated the elected members of the Pondicherry Legislative Assembly into the President’s Electoral College. The Electoral College for the presidential election will now include the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the Union Territory of Pondicherry.Also Refer]
55. Manner of election of President
56. Term of office of President
57. Eligibility for re-election
A person who holds, or who has held, office as President shall, subject to the other provisions of this Constitution, be eligible for re-election to that office.
58. Qualifications for election as President
59. Conditions of President’s office
60. Oath or affirmation by the President
Every President and every person acting as President or discharging the functions of the President shall, before entering upon his office, make and subscribe in the presence of the Chief Justice of India or, in his absence, the senior most Judge of the Supreme Court available, an oath or affirmation in the following form, that is to say-“I, A.B., do swear in the name of God/solemnly affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of President (or discharge the functions of the President) of India and will do the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law and that I will devote myself to the service and well-being of the people of India.”
61. Procedure for impeachment of the President
62. Time of holding election to fill vacancy in the office of President and the term of office of person elected to fill casual vacancy
63. The Vice-President of India
There shall be a Vice-President of India.
64. The Vice-President to be ex-officio Chairman of the Council of States
The Vice-President shall be ex-officio Chairman of the Council of States and shall not hold any other office of profit:Provided that during any period when the Vice-President acts as President or discharges the functions of the President under article 65, he shall not perform the duties of the office of Chairman of the Council of Stales and shall not be entitled to any salary or allowance payable to the Chairman of the Council of States under article 97.
65. The Vice-President to act as President or to discharge his functions during casual vacancies in the office, or during the absence, of President
66. Election of Vice-President
67. Term of office of Vice-President
The Vice-President shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office:Provided that-
68. Time of holding election to fill vacancy in the office of Vice-President and the term of office of person elected to fill casual vacancy
69. Oath or affirmation by the Vice-President
Every Vice-President shall, before entering upon his office, make and subscribe before the President, or some person appointed in that behalf by him, an oath or affirmation in the following form, that is to say“I, A.B., do swear in the name of God/solemnly affirm that I will bear true faith, and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established and that I will faithfully discharge the duty upon which I am about to enter.”
70. Discharge of President’s functions in other contingencies
Parliament may make such provision as it thinks fit for the discharge of the functions of the President in any contingency not provided for in this Chapter.
71. Matters relating to, or connected with, the election of a President or Vice-President
[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Thirty-Ninth Amendment) Act, 1975, was passed in response to the Allahabad High Court’s decision invalidating PM Indira Gandhi’s election to the Lok Sabha on Raj Narain’s petition. This exempted the president, vice president, prime minister, and speaker from the jurisdiction of the courts. They are to be decided by whichever authority the Parliament chooses. Amended articles 71, Important Verdict-State Of U.P vs Raj Narain & Ors Also Refer ]SUBSEC (1)All doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with the election of a President or Vice-President shall be inquired into and decided by the Supreme Court whose decision shall be final.SUBSEC (2)If the election of a person as President or Vice-President is declared void by the Supreme Court, acts done by him in the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of the office of President or Vice-President, as the case may be, on or before the date of the decision of the Supreme Court shall not be invalidated by reason of that declaration.SUBSEC (3)Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may by law regulate any matter relating to or connected with the election of a President or Vice-President.SUBSEC (4)The election of a person as President or Vice-President shall not be called in question on the ground of the existence of any vacancy for whatever reason among the members of the electoral college electing him.[Editorial comment– The Constitution (Eleventh Amendment) Act, 1961, eliminates the prior need for members of both Houses of Parliament to meet together to elect the vice president. Before this, members of both Houses of Parliament were required to assemble to elect the Vice-President. This means that the Vice-President can now be chosen by the members of this electoral college, and it is no longer necessary for them to assemble in one place to carry out the election process. However, with this change, a new electoral college was created, which comprises members from both Houses of Parliament is a crucial step towards democratization and inclusivity in the Indian political system. It adds a new clause (4) to Article 71 of the Constitution. By eliminating the requirement for members of both Houses of Parliament to physically meet together to elect the Vice-President, the amendment made the process more efficient and streamlined. Also refer ][Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, repealed Article 19 (1) (f) and also took out Article 31(1) has been taken out of Part III and made a separate Article 300A in Chapter IV of Part XII. This amendment may have taken away the scope of speedy remedy under Article 32 for the violation of Right to Property because it is no more a Fundamental Right. Making it a legal right under the Constitution serves two purposes: Firstly, it gives emphasis to the value of socialism included in the preamble and secondly, in doing so, it conformed to the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution. Also Refer]
72. Power of President to grant pardons, etc., and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases
73. Extent of executive power of the Union
Provided that the executive power referred to in sub-clause (a) shall not, save as expressly provided in this Constitution or in any law made by Parliament, extend in any State to matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has also power to make laws.
74. Council of Ministers to aid and advise President
75. Other provisions as to Ministers
76. Attorney-General for India
The Attorney-General for India
77. Conduct of business of the Government of India
78. Duties of Prime Minister as respects the furnishing of information to the President, etc.
It shall be the duty of the Prime Minister–
79. Constitution of Parliament
There shall be a Parliament for the Union which shall consist of the President and two Houses to be known respectively as the Council of States and the House of the People.
80. Composition of the Council of States
81. Composition of the House of the People
Provided that the provisions of sub-clause (a) of this clause shall not be applicable for the purpose of allotment of seats in the House of the People to any State so long as the population of that State does not exceed six millions.
[Editorial comment– The Constitution (Second Amendment) Act, 1952, it was suggested to merge and change Clause 2 of 81 and 82. This was done to include requirements for Union Territories.Also refer][Editorial comment-The Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, it t was suggested to merge and change Clause 2 of 81 and 82. This was done to include requirements for Union Territories. Also Refer ][Editorial comment– The Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) Act, 1962, in article 81’s subclause (b) of clause (1) of the Indian Constitution, the greatest number of Lok Sabha seats available for Union territory representatives must be raised from twenty to twenty-five members. The Indian Constitution’s first schedule is modified to add the territories of “Pondicherry” as the ninth Indian Union Territory as of August 16, 1962.Also refer ][Editorial comment-The Constitution (Thirty-First Amendment) Act, 1973, primary objective was the Parliament seats and thereby Articles 81, 330, and 332 were amended. The Amendment hailed as one of the more impactful Amendments as it led to the number of representatives from both houses being equal. That said, the number of representatives of either house, that is, the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha is not a fixed number. They may be increased or decreased if the situation requires. The government has the authority to take a call on the same and make the necessary adjustments. Such changes are usually brought about by the government when they believe that the inhabitants of a certain State are not represented fairly at either of the houses. They are also instigated by a change in demography.Also Refer][Editorial comment-The Constitution (Eighty-seventh Amendment) Act, 2003, amends the Delimitation Act, 2002, and is called the Delimitation (Amendment) Act of 2003. Under this act, electoral constituencies, including the reserved seats for SCs and STs, may be readjusted based on the 2001 population census without altering the number of seats reserved for States in the legislative bodies. Also Refer]
82. Readjustment after each census
Upon the completion of each census, the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States and the division of each State into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted by such authority and in such manner as Parliament may by law determine:Provided that such readjustment shall not affect representation in the House of the People until the dissolution of the then existing House:Provided further that such readjustment shall take effect from such date as President may, by order, specify and until such readjustment takes effect, any election to the House may be held on the basis of the territorial constituencies existing before such readjustment:Provided also that until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2026 have been published, it shall not be necessary to readjust-
[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, it was suggested to merge and change Clause 2 of 81 and 82. This was done to include requirements for Union Territories. Also Refer ]
83. Duration of Houses of Parliament
84. Qualification for membership of Parliament
A person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in Parliament unless he–
[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, were amended, to provide that every candidate for the membership of Parliament or state legislatures, Union and state ministers, Judges of the supreme court and high courts, and the comptroller and Auditor- General of India should swear an oath to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India. The forms of oath in the third schedule are amended.]
85. Sessions of Parliament, prorogation and dissolution
86. Right of President to address and send messages to Houses
87. Special address by the President
88. Rights of Ministers and Attorney-General as respects Houses
Every Minister and the Attorney-General of India shall have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of either House, any joint sitting of the Houses, and any committee of Parliament of which he may be named a member, but shall not by virtue of this article be entitled to vote.
89. The Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Council of States
90. Vacation and resignation of, and removal from, the office of Deputy Chairman
A member holding office as Deputy Chairman of the Council of States–
Provided that no resolution for the purpose of clause (c) shall be moved unless at least fourteen days’ notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution.
91. Power of the Deputy Chairman or other person to perform the duties of the office of, or to act as, Chairman
92. The Chairman or the Deputy Chairman not to preside while a resolution for his removal from office is under consideration
93. The Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the House of the People
The House of the People shall, as soon as may be, choose two members of the House to be respectively Speaker and Deputy Speaker thereof and, so often as the office of Speaker or Deputy Speaker becomes vacant, the House shall choose another member to be Speaker or Deputy Speaker, as the case may be.
94. Vacation and resignation of, and removal from, the offices of Speaker and Deputy Speaker
A member holding office as Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the House of the People–
Provided that no resolution for the purpose of clause (c) shall be moved unless at least fourteen days’ notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution:Provided further that, whenever the House of the People is dissolved, the Speaker shall not vacate his office until immediately before the first meeting of the House of the People after the dissolution.
95. Power of the Deputy Speaker or other person to perform the duties of the office of, or to act as, Speaker
96. The Speaker or the Deputy Speaker not to preside while a resolution for his removal from office is under consideration
97. Salaries and allowances of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman and the Speaker and Deputy Speaker
There shall be paid to the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of the Council of States, and to the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the House of the People, such salaries and allowances as may be respectively fixed by Parliament by law and, until provision in that behalf is so made, such salaries and allowances as are specified in the Second Schedule.
98. Secretariat of Parliament
99. Oath or affirmation by members
Every member of either House of Parliament shall, before taking his seat, make and subscribe before the President, or some person appointed in that behalf by him, an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule.
100. Voting in Houses, power of Houses to act notwithstanding vacancies and quorum
101. Vacation of seats
his seat shall thereupon become vacant:Provided that in the case of any resignation referred to in sub-clause (b), if from information received or otherwise and after making such inquiry as he thinks fit, the Chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be, is satisfied that such resignation is not voluntary or genuine, he shall not accept such resignation.
102. Disqualifications for membership
Explanation.– For the purposes of this clause a person shall not be deemed to hold an office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State by reason only that he is a Minister either for the Union or for such State.
103. Decision on questions as to disqualifications of members
104. Penalty for sitting and voting before making oath or affirmation under article 99 or when not qualified or when disqualified
If a person sits or votes as a member of either House of Parliament before he has complied with the requirements of article 99, or when he knows that he is not qualified or that he is disqualified for membership thereof, or that he is prohibited from so doing by the provisions of any law made by Parliament, he shall be liable in respect of each day on which he so sits or votes to a penalty of five hundred rupees to be recovered as a debt due to the Union.
105. Powers, privileges, etc., of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof
106. Salaries and allowances of members
Members of either House of Parliament shall be entitled to receive such salaries and allowances as may from time to time be determined by Parliament by law and, until provision in that respect is so made, allowances at such rates and upon such conditions as were immediately before the commencement of this Constitution applicable in the case of members of the Constituent Assembly of the Dominion of India.
107. Provisions as to introduction and passing of Bills
108. Joint sitting of both Houses in certain cases
the President may, unless the Bill has lapsed by reason of a dissolution of the House of the People, notify to me Houses by message if they are sitting or by public notification if they are not sitting, his intention to summon them to meet in a joint sitting for the purpose of deliberating and voting on the Bill:Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to a Money Bill.
and the decision of the person presiding as to the amendments which are admissible under this clause shall be final.
109. Special procedure in respect of Money Bills
110. Definition of “Money Bills”
111. Assent to Bills
When a Bill has been passed by the Houses of Parliament, it shall be presented to the President and the President shall declare either that he assents to the Bill, or that he withholds assent therefrom:Provided that the President may, as soon as possible after the presentation to him of a Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill to the Houses with a message requesting that they will reconsider the Bill or any specified provisions thereof and, in particular, will consider the desirability of introducing any such amendments as he may recommend in his message, and when a Bill is so returned, the Houses shall reconsider the Bill accordingly, and if the Bill is passed again by the Houses with or without amendment and presented to the President for assent, the President shall not withhold assent therefrom.
112. Annual financial statement
and shall distinguish expenditure on revenue account from other expenditure.
113. Procedure in Parliament with respect to estimates
114. Appropriation Bills
115. Supplementary, additional or excess grants
cause to be laid before both the Houses of Parliament another statement showing the estimated amount of that expenditure or cause to be presented to the House of the People a demand for such excess, as the case may be.
116. Votes on account, votes of credit and exceptional grants
and Parliament shall have power to authorise by law the withdrawal of moneys from the Consolidated Fund of India for the purposes for which the said grants are made.
117. Special provisions as to financial Bills
118. Rules of procedure
119. Regulation by law of procedure in Parliament in relation to financial business
Parliament may, for the purpose of the timely completion of financial business, regulate by law the procedure of, and the conduct of business in, each House of Parliament in relation to any financial matter or to any Bill for the appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of India, and, if and so far as any provision of any law so made is inconsistent with any rule made by a House of Parliament under clause (1) of article 118 or with any rule or standing order having effect in relation to Parliament under clause (2) of that article, such provision shall prevail.
120. Language to be used in Parliament
121. Restriction on discussion in Parliament
No discussions shall take place in Parliament with respect to the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of his duties expect upon a motion for presenting an address to the President praying for the removal of the Judge as hereinafter provided.
122. Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Parliament
123. Power of President to promulgate Ordinances during recess of Parliament
Explanation.–Where the Houses of Parliament are summoned to reassemble on different dates, the period of six weeks shall be reckoned from the later of those dates for the purposes of this clause.
124. Establishment and Constitution of Supreme Court
Explanation I– this clause “High Court’ means a High Court which exercises, or which at any lime before the commencement of this Constitution exercised, jurisdiction in any part of the territory of India.Explanation II–In computing for the purpose of this clause the period during which a person has been an advocate, any period during which a person has held judicial office not inferior to that of a district Judge after he became an advocate shall be included.
124A. National Judicial Appointments Commission
Provided that one of the eminent person shall be nominated from amongst the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Minorities or Women:Provided further that an eminent person shall be nominated for a period of three years and shall not be eligible for renomination.
124B. Functions of Commission
It shall be the duty of the National Judicial Appointments Commission to-
124C. Power of Parliament to make law
Parliament may, by law, regulate the procedure for the appointment of Chief Justice of India and other Judges of the Supreme Court and Chief Justices and other Judges of High Courts and empower the Commission to lay down by regulations the procedure for the discharge of its functions, the manner of selection of persons for appointment and such other matters as may be considered necessary by it.[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2012, specifies the ability of Parliament to enact laws. The Chief Justice of India, along with the other Supreme Court and High Court justices, may be recommended by regulation that is to be managed by the Indian Parliament. The committee may propose any rules and processes necessary for this arrangement.{>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-ninth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_India Also Refer]}}
125. Salaries, etc., of Judges
126. Appointment of acting Chief Justice
When the office of Chief Justice of India is vacant or when the Chief Justice is, by reason of absence or otherwise, unable to perform the duties of his office, the duties of the office shall be performed by such one of the other Judges of the Court as the President may appoint for the purpose.
127. Appointment of ad hoc Judges
128. Attendance of retired Judges at sittings of the Supreme Court
Not withstanding anything in this Chapter, the Chief Justice of India may at any time, with the previous consent of the President, request any person who has held the office of a Judge of the Supreme Court or of the Federal Court or who has held the office of a Judge of a High Court and is duly qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court to sit and act as a Judge of the Supreme Court, and every such person so requested shall, while so sitting and acting, been titled to such allowances as the President may by order determine and have all the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of, but shall not otherwise be deemed to be, a Judge of that Court:Provided that nothing in this article shall be deemed to require any such person as aforesaid to sit and act as a Judge of that Court unless he consents so to do.[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, a revised version of Article 128 allows for the appointment of a retired judge from a High Court to serve as a judge of the Supreme Court.]
129. Supreme Court to be a court of record
The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.
130. Seat of Supreme Court
The Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places, as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President, from time to time, appoint.
131. Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute–
Provided that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to a dispute arising out of any treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, named or other similar instrument which, having been entered into or executed before the commencement of this Constitution, continues in operation after such commencement, or which provides that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to such a dispute.[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, it was substituted due to the absence of Part B states the clause in this article needs to be amended. It discusses the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court needs to be revised because the Part B states have changed. Also Refer ]
131A. Exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in regard to questions as to constitutional validity of Central Laws [Repealed]
Every High Court, passing or making a judgment, decree, final order, or sentence, referred to in clause (1) of article 132 or clause (1) of article 133, or clause (1) of article 134,—
[Article 131A of the Constitution shall be omitted.][Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where immediately before the commencement of this Act any reference made by a High Court under the said article 131A is pending before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court may, having regard to-(a)the stage at which the reference is so pending; and(b)the ends of justice, either deal with the case as if that article had not been omitted or return the case of the High Court for disposal as if that article had been omitted with effect on and from the 1st day of February, 1977.][Rep. by the Constitution (Forty-third Amendment Act, 1977, section 4 (w.e.f. 13.4.1978][Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Third Amendment) Act, 1977, Section 4 omits article 131(A) relating to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in regard to questions as to the constitutional validity of Central laws.Also Refer]
132. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in certain cases
133. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in regard to civil matters
134. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters
Provided that an appeal under sub-clause (c) shall lie subject to such provisions as may be made in that behalf under clause (1) of article 145 and to such conditions as the High Court may establish or require.
134A. Certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court
Every High Court, passing or making a judgment, decree, final order, or sentence, referred to in clause (1) of article 132 or clause (1) of article 133, or clause (1) of article 134-
[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, repealed Article 19 (1) (f) and also took out Article 31(1) has been taken out of Part III and made a separate Article 300A in Chapter IV of Part XII. This amendment may have taken away the scope of speedy remedy under Article 32 for the violation of Right to Property because it is no more a Fundamental Right. Making it a legal right under the Constitution serves two purposes: Firstly, it gives emphasis to the value of socialism included in the preamble and secondly, in doing so, it conformed to the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution. Also Refer]
135. Jurisdiction and powers of the Federal Court under existing law to be exercisable by the Supreme Court
Until Parliament by law otherwise provides, the Supreme Court shall also have jurisdiction and powers with respect to any matter to which the provisions of article 133 or article 134 do not apply if jurisdiction and powers in relation to that matter were exercisable by the Federal Court immediately before the commencement of this Constitution under any existing law.
136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
137. Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court
Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.
138. Enlargement of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
139. Conferment on the Supreme Court of powers to issue certain writs
Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court power to issue directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrant to and certiorari, or any of them, for any purposes other than those mentioned in clause (2) of article 32.
139A. Transfer of certain cases
140. Ancillary powers of Supreme Court
Parliament may by law make provision for conferring upon the Supreme Court such supplemental powers not inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Constitution as may appear to be necessary or desirable for the purpose of enabling the court more effectively to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by or under this Constitution.
141. Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts
The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.
142. Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc
143. Power of President to consult Supreme Court
144. Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court
All authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.
144A. Special provisions as to disposal of questions relating to constitutional validity of laws [Repealed]
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, the provisions of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, shall remain in force until the expiration of a period of six months after the 1st day of March, 1977.[Rep. by the Constitution (Forty-third Amendment) Act, 1977, section 5 (w.e.f. 13.4.1978).][Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Third Amendment) Act, 1977, A Central or State law could only be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court under Article 144(A) with a bench of at least 7 justices. Moreover, a two-thirds special majority of the bench is required.Also Refer]
145. Rules of court, etc.
146. Officers and servants and the expenses of the Supreme Court
147. Interpretation
In this Chapter and in Chapter V of Part VI references to any substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution shall be construed as including references to any substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Government of India Act, 1935 (including any enactment amending or supplementing that Act), or of any order in Council or order made there under, or of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, or of any order made there under.
148. Comptroller and Auditor-General of India
149. Duties and powers of the Comptroller and Auditor-General
The Comptroller and Auditor-General shall perform such duties and exercise such powers in relation to the” accounts of the Union and of the States and of any other authority or body as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in mat behalf is so made, shall perform such duties and exercise such powers in relation to the accounts of the Union and of the States as were conferred on or exercisable by the Auditor-General of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution in relation to the accounts of the Dominion of India and of the Provinces respectively.
150. Form of accounts of the Union and of the States
The accounts of the Union and of the States shall be kept in such form as the President may, on the advice of the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India, prescribe.[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, repealed Article 19 (1) (f) and also took out Article 31(1) has been taken out of Part III and made a separate Article 300A in Chapter IV of Part XII. This amendment may have taken away the scope of speedy remedy under Article 32 for the violation of Right to Property because it is no more a Fundamental Right. Making it a legal right under the Constitution serves two purposes: Firstly, it gives emphasis to the value of socialism included in the preamble and secondly, in doing so, it conformed to the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution. Also Refer]
151. Audit reports
Part VI – The States
152. Definition
In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, the expression “State”does not include the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
153. Governors of States
There shall be a Governor for each State:Provided that nothing in this article shall prevent the appointment of the same person as Governor for two or more States.[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, it amended Article 153 where the selection of a governor for each state turned into a problem with inefficiency. It was discovered that a governor could oversee two or more states, doing away with the need to appoint governors for each state and territory. The President was unable to proceed because of the article’s provision, thus, a constitutional revision was required. This was changed to permit the allocation of more than one state to a governor as needed. Also Refer ]
154. Executive power of State
155. Appointment of Governor
The Governor of a State shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal.
156. Term of office of Governor
157. Qualifications for appointment as Governor
No person shall be eligible for appointment as Governor unless he is a citizen of India and has completed the age of thirty-five years.
158. Conditions of Governor’s office
159. Oath or affirmation by the Governor
Every Governor and every person discharging the functions of the Governor shall, before entering upon his office, make and subscribe in the presence of the Chief Justice of the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the State, or, in his absence, the senior most Judge of that court available, an oath or affirmation in the following form, that is to say–“I, A.B., do swear in the name of God / solemnly affirm faithfully execute the office of Governor (or discharge the functions of the Governor) of ….. (name of the State) and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law and that I will devote myself to the service and well-being of the people of …….(name of the State).”
160. Discharge of the functions of the Governor in certain contingencies
The President may make such provision as he thinks fit for the discharge of the functions of the Governor of a State in any contingency not provided for in this Chapter.
161. Power of Governor to grant pardons, etc., and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases
The Governor of a State shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends.
162. Extent of executive power of State
Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive power of a State shall extend to the matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power to make laws:Provided that in any matter with respect to which the Legislature of a State and Parliament have power to make laws, the executive power of the State shall be subject to, and limited by, the executive power expressly conferred by the Constitution or by any law made by Parliament upon the Union or authorities thereof.
163. Council of Ministers to aid and advise Governor
164. Other provisions as to Ministers
165. Advocate-General for the State
The Advocate-General for the State
166. Conduct of business of the Government of a State
167. Duties of Chief Minister as respects the furnishing of information to Governor, etc.
It shall be the duty of the Chief Minister of each State–
168. Constitution of Legislatures in States
169. Abolition or creation of Legislative Councils in States
170. Composition of the Legislative Assemblies
171. Composition of the Legislative Councils
172. Duration of State Legislatures
173. Qualification for membership of the State Legislature
A person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislature of a State unless he
[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, were amended, to provide that every candidate for the membership of Parliament or state legislatures, Union and state ministers, Judges of the supreme court and high courts, and the comptroller and Auditor- General of India should swear an oath to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India. The forms of oath in the third schedule are amended.]
174. Sessions of the State Legislature, prorogation and dissolution
175. Right of Governor to address and send messages to the House or Houses
176. Special address by the Governor
177. Rights of Ministers and Advocate-General as respects the Houses
Every Minister and the Advocate-General for a State shall have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of, the Legislative Assembly of the State or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, both Houses, and to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of, any committee of the Legislature of which he may be named a member, but shall not, by virtue of this article, be entitled to vote.
178. The Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly
Every Legislative Assembly of a State shall, as soon as may be, choose two members of the Assembly to be respectively Speaker and Deputy Speakers thereof and, so often as the office of Speaker or Deputy Speaker becomes vacant, the Assembly shall choose another member to be Speaker or Deputy Speaker, as the case may be.
179. Vacation and resignation of, and removal from, the offices of Speaker and Deputy Speaker
A member holding office as Speaker or Deputy Speaker of an Assembly—
Provided that no resolution for the purpose of clause (c) shall be moved unless al least fourteen days’ notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution:Provided further that, whenever the Assembly is dissolved, the Speaker shall not vacate his office until immediately before the first meeting of the Assembly after the dissolution.
180. Power of the Deputy Speaker or other person to perform the duties of the office of, or to act as, Speaker
181. The Speaker or the Deputy Speaker not to preside while a resolution for his removal from office is under consideration
182. The Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Legislative Council
The Legislative Council of every State having such Council shall, as soon as may be, choose two members of the Council to be respectively Chairman and Deputy Chairman thereof and, so often as the office of Chairman or Deputy Chairman becomes vacant, the Council shall choose another member to be Chairman or Deputy Chairman, as the case may be.
183. Vacation and resignation of, and removal from, the offices of Chairman and Deputy Chairman
A member holding office as Chairman or Deputy Chairman of a Legislative Council-
Provided that no resolution for the purpose of clause (c) shall be moved unless at least fourteen days’ notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution.
184. Power of the Deputy Chairman or other person to perform the duties of the office of, or to act as, Chairman
185. The Chairman or the Deputy Chairman not to preside while a resolution for his removal from office is under consideration
186. Salaries and allowances of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker and the Chairman and Deputy Chairman
There shall be paid to the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, and to the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of the Legislative Council, such salaries and allowances as may be respectively fixed by the Legislature of the State by law and, until provision in that behalf is so made, such salaries and allowances as are specified in the Second Schedule.
187. Secretariat of State Legislature
188. Oath or affirmation by members
Every member of the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council of a State shall, before taking his seat, make and subscribe before the Governor, or some person Appointed in that behalf by him, an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule.
189. Voting in Houses, power of Houses to act notwithstanding vacancies and quorum
190. Vacation of seats
191. Disqualifications for membership
Explanation. For the purposes of this clause, a person shall not be deemed to hold an office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State specified in the First Schedule by reason only that he is a Minister either for the Union or for such State.
192. Decision on questions as to disqualifications of members
193. Penalty for sitting and voting before making oath or affirmation under article 188 or when not qualified or when disqualified
If a person sits or votes as a member of the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council of a State before he has complied with the requirements of article 188, or when he knows that he is not qualified or that he is disqualified for membership thereof, or that he is prohibited from so doing by the provisions of any law made by Parliament or the Legislature of the State, he shall be liable in respect of each day on which he so sits or votes to a penalty of five hundred rupees to be recovered as a debt due to the State.
194. Powers, privileges, etc., of the House of Legislatures and of the members and committees thereof
195. Salaries and allowances of members
Members of the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council of a State shall be entitled to receive such salaries and allowances as may from time to time be determined, by the Legislature of the State by law and, until provision in that respect is so made, salaries and allowances at such rates and upon such conditions as were immediately before the commencement of the Constitution applicable in the case of members of the Legislative Assembly of the corresponding province.
196. Provisions as to introduction and passing of Bills
197. Restriction on powers of Legislative Council as to Bills other than Money Bills
the Legislative Assembly may, subject to the rules regulating its procedure, pass the Bill again in the same or in any subsequent session with or without such amendments, if any, as have been made, suggested or agreed to by the Legislative Council and then transmit the Bill as so passed to the Legislative Council.
198. Special procedure in respect of Money Bills
199. Definition of “Money Bills”
200. Assent to Bills
When a Bill has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, has been passed by both Houses of the Legislature of the State, it shall be presented to the Governor and the Governor shall declare either that he assents to the Bill or that he withholds assent therefrom or that he reserves the Bill for the consideration of the President:Provided that the Governor may, as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill together with a message requesting that the House or Houses will reconsider the Bill or any specified provisions thereof and, in particular, will consider the desirability of introducing any such amendments as he may recommend in his message and, when a Bill is so returned, the . House or Houses shall reconsider the Bill accordingly, and if the Bill is passed again by the House or Houses with or without amendment and presented to the Governor for assent, the Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom:Provided further that the Governor shall not assent to, but shall reserve for the consideration of the President, any Bill which in the opinion of the Governor would, if it became law, so derogate from the powers of the High Court as to endanger the position which that Court is by this Constitution designed to fill.
201. Bills reserved for consideration
When a Bill is reserved by a Governor for the consideration of the President, the President shall declare either that he assents to the Bill or that he withholds assent therefrom:Provided that, where the Bill is not a Money Bill, the President may direct the Governor to return the Bill to the House or, as the case may be, the Houses of the Legislature of the State together with such a message as it mentioned in the first proviso to article 200 and, when a Bill is so returned, the House or Houses shall reconsider it accordingly within a period of six months from the date of receipt of such message and, if it is again passed by the House or Houses with or without amendment, it shall be presented again to the President for his consideration.
202. Annual financial statement
and shall distinguish expenditure on revenue account from other expenditure.
203. Procedure in Legislature with respect to estimates
204. Appropriation Bills
205. Supplementary, additional or excess grants
cause to be laid before the House or the Houses of the Legislature of the State another statement showing the estimated amount of that expenditure or cause to be presented to the Legislative Assembly of the State a demand for such excess, as the case may be.
206. Votes on account, votes of credit and exceptional grants
and the Legislature of the State shall have power to authorise by law the withdrawal of moneys from the Consolidated Fund of the State for the purposes for which the said grants are made.
207. Special provisions as to financial Bills
208. Rules of procedure
209. Regulation by law of procedure in the Legislature of the State in relation to financial business
The Legislature of a State may, for the purpose of the timely completion of financial business, regulate by law the procedure of, and the conduct of business in, the House or Houses of the Legislature of the State in relation 10 any financial matter or to any Bill for the appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of the State, and, if and so far as any provision of any law so made is inconsistent with any rule made by the House or either House of the Legislature of the State under clause (1) of article 208 or with any rule or standing order having effect in relation to the Legislature of the State under clause (2) of that article, such provision shall prevail.
210. Language to be used in the Legislature
211. Restriction on discussion in the Legislature
No discussion shall take place in the Legislature of a Stale with respect to the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of his duties.
212. Courts not to inquire into proceedings of the Legislature
213. Power of Governor to promulgate Ordinances during recess of Legislature
Explanation.–Where the Houses of the Legislature of a State having a Legislative Council are summoned to reassemble on different dates, the period of six weeks shall be reckoned from the later of (hose dates for the purposes of this clause.
214. High Courts for States
There shall be a High Court for each State.
215. High Courts to be courts of record
Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.
216. Constitution of High Courts
Every High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and such other Judges as the President may from time to time deem it necessary to appoint.[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, this amendment sets the number of judges for each High Court. This enables the President to propose as many judges as required for a High Court. Since the largest number can be altered at any time, it was deemed unnecessary and left out. Also Refer ]
217. Appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court
Explanation: For the purposes of this clause–
218. Application of certain provisions Application of certain provisions relating to Supreme Court to High Courts
The provisions of clauses (4) and (5) of article 124 shall apply in relation to a High Court as they apply in relation to the Supreme Court with the substitution of references to the High Court for references to the Supreme Court.
219. Oath or affirmation by Judges of High Courts
Every person appointed to be a Judge of a High Court shall, before he enters upon his office, make and subscribe before the Governor of the State, or some person appointed in that behalf by him, an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule.
220. Restriction on practice after being a permanent Judge
No person who, after the commencement of this Constitution, has held office as a permanent Judge of a High Court shall plead or act in any court or before any authority in India except the Supreme Court and the other High Courts.Explanation.– In this article, the expression “High Court” does not include a High Court for a State specified in Part B of the First Schedule as it existed before the commencement of the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956.[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, the old clause in Article 220 of the Constitution forbade retired judges from continuing their legal careers. As a result of the reform, retired High Court judges are now eligible to serve on the Supreme Court and in High Courts, but not the ones where they served as permanent judges.Also Refer ]
221. Salaries etc., of Judges
222. Transfer of a Judge from one High Court to another
223. Appointment of acting Chief Justice
When the office of Chief Justice of a High Court is vacant or when any such Chief Justice is, by reason of absence or otherwise, unable to perform the duties of his office, the duties of the office shall be performed by such one of the other Judges of the court as the President may appoint for the purposes.
224. Appointment of additional and acting Judges
224A. Appointment of retired Judges at sittings of High Courts
Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the National Judicial Appointments Commission on a reference made to it by the Chief Justice of a High Court for any State, may with the previous consent of the President, request any person who has held the office of Judge of that Court or of any other High Court to sit and act as a Judge of the High Court for that State, and every such person so requested shall, while so sitting and acting, be entitled to such allowances as the President may by order determine and have all the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of, but shall not otherwise be deemed to be, a Judge of that High Court:Provided that nothing in this article shall be deemed to require any such person as aforesaid to sit and act as a Judge of that High Court unless he consents so to do.[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, it allows for the appointment of a former High Court judge to serve as a High Court judge with the previous consent of the President..][Editorial comment-The Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2012, in Article 224A of the Constitution, the phrase “the Chief Justice of a High Court for any State may at any time, with the previous consent of the President” should be replaced with the phrase “National Judicial Appointment Commission on a reference made to it by the Chief Justice of a High Court for any State, with the previous consent of the President.”Also Refer]
225. Jurisdiction of existing High Courts
Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the provisions of any law of the appropriate Legislature made by virtue of powers conferred on that Legislature by this Constitution, the jurisdiction of, and the law administered in, any existing High Court, and the respective powers of the Judges thereof in relation to the administration of justice in the Court, including any power to make rules of Court and to regulate the sittings of the court and of members thereof sitting alone or in Division Courts, shall be the same as immediately before the commencement of this Constitution :Provided that any restriction to which the exercise of original jurisdiction by any of the High Courts with respect to any matter concerning the revenue or concerning any act ordered or done in the collection thereof was subject immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall no longer apply to the exercise of such jurisdiction.[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, repealed Article 19 (1) (f) and also took out Article 31(1) has been taken out of Part III and made a separate Article 300A in Chapter IV of Part XII. This amendment may have taken away the scope of speedy remedy under Article 32 for the violation of Right to Property because it is no more a Fundamental Right. Making it a legal right under the Constitution serves two purposes: Firstly, it gives emphasis to the value of socialism included in the preamble and secondly, in doing so, it conformed to the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution. Also Refer]
226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
* Before the implementation of this Act, the High Court may handle any cases that were pending before it under article 226 of the Constitution. As if the aforementioned article 226(A) had been deleted as of February 1st, 1977.Also Refer][Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, repealed Article 19 (1) (f) and also took out Article 31(1) has been taken out of Part III and made a separate Article 300A in Chapter IV of Part XII. This amendment may have taken away the scope of speedy remedy under Article 32 for the violation of Right to Property because it is no more a Fundamental Right. Making it a legal right under the Constitution serves two purposes: Firstly, it gives emphasis to the value of socialism included in the preamble and secondly, in doing so, it conformed to the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution. Also Refer]
226A. Constitutional validity of Central laws not to be considered in proceedings under 226
227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court
228. Transfer of certain cases to High Court
If the High Court is satisfied that a case pending in a court subordinate to it involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution the de termination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case,it shall withdraw the case and may–
[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Third Amendment) Act, 1977,The phrase “, subject to the restrictions of article 131(A)” and its modifiers shall be removed from the first clause of article 228 of the Constitution.Also Refer]
228A. Special provisions as to disposal of question relating to constitutional validity of State Laws
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, –
[Any case pending before a High Court immediately before the commencement of this Act may be dealt with by the High Court as if the said article 228A had been omitted with effect on and from the 1st day of February, 1977.][Rep . by the Constitution (Forty-third Amendment) Act, 1977, section 10, (w.e.f. 13-4-1978)][Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, A new article 228A was inserted in the Constitution which would give High Courts the authority to “determine all questions as to the constitutional validity of any State law”. The amendment’s fifty-nine clauses stripped the Supreme Court of many of its powers and moved the political system toward parliamentary sovereignty. The 43rd and 44th Amendments reversed these changes.Also Refer][Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Third Amendment) Act, 1977, Under Article 228(A), a High Court could only declare a State law invalid if the decision was made by a bench of at least five judges. Additionally, a special majority of two-thirds of the bench voted in favor of the motion.Also Refer]
229. Officers and servants and the expenses of High Courts
230. Extension of jurisdiction of High Courts to Union territories
[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, this amendement is for the creation of state high courts is the subject of these.After the changes, a High Court’s jurisdiction could be expanded to a Union territory if needed. Also Refer ]
231. Establishment of a common High Court for two or more States
Provided that if such principal seat is in a Union territory, the references in articles 210 and 229 to the Governor, Public Service Commission, Legislature and Consolidated Fund of the State shall be construed respectively as references to the President, Union Public Service Commission, Parliament and Consolidated Fund of India.[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, this amendement is for the creation of state high courts is the subject of these.After the changes, a High Court’s jurisdiction could be expanded to a Union territory if needed. Also Refer ][Editorial comment-The Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2012, clause (a) of Article 231’s 2nd clause, which is required under that provision, shall be omitted.Also Refer]
232. Articles 230, 231 and 232 substituted with articles 230 and 231
Omitted vide Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956.[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Seventy-second Amendment) Act, 1992, provides the reservation of seats to the Scheduled tribes (ST) in the legislative assembly of the State of Tripura. It is valid till the date of re-adjustment of seats based on the first census after the year 2000, as provided for in Article 170 of the Indian Constitution for the state of Tripura.Also Refer]
233. Appointment of district judges
233A. Validation of appointments of, and judgments, etc., delivered by, certain district judges
Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court,
[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Twentieth Amendment) Act, 1966, inserted a new Article 233A, among other things such as validating the appointments, postings, promotions, and transfer of District judges. This amendment establishes new jurisdictions that have the power to certify the appointments, promotions and transfers of District judges and judgments made before the enactment of current law in States that have not complied with the corresponding provisions of Article 233 of the Indian Constitution. The amendment act is primarily concerned with the appointment, secondment, promotion, and transfer of district judges to the effective date of existing laws enacted in states that do not comply with the provisions of Article 233 or Article 235 of the Constitution. Also refer ]
234. Recruitment of persons other than district judges to the judicial service
Appointment of persons other than district judges to the judicial service of a State shall be made by the Governor of the State in accordance with rules made by him in that behalf after consultation with the Slate Public Service Commission and with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.
235. Control over subordinate courts
The control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto including the posting and promotion of, and the grant of leave to, persons belonging to the judicial service of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of district judge shall be vested in the High Court, but nothing in this article shall be construed as taking away from any such person any right of appeal which he may under the law regulating the conditions of his service or as authorising the High Court to deal with him otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of his service prescribed under such law.
236. Interpretation
In this Chapter:
237. Application of the provisions of this Chapter to certain class or classes of magistrates
The Governor may by public notification direct that the foregoing provisions of this Chapter and any rules made thereunder shall with effect from such date as may be fixed by him in that behalf apply in relation to any class or classes of magistrates in the State as they apply in relation to persons appointed to the judicial service of the State subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified in the notification.
Part VII – The states in part B of the First Schedule
Repealed by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, section 29 and Schedule.
Part VIII – The Union Territories
239. Administration of Union territories
239A. Creation of local Legislatures or Council of Ministers or both for certain Union territories
239AA. Special provisions with respect to Delhi
Provided that if any such law made by the Legislative Assembly has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, such law shall prevail in the National Capital Territory:Provided further that nothing in this sub-clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislative Assembly.
239AB. Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery
If the President, on receipt of a report from the Lieutenant Governor or otherwise, is satisfied
[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Sixty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1991, To provide for a legislative assembly and council of ministers for National Capital Territory of Delhi. Delhi continues to be a Union Territory Also Refer]
239B. Power of administrator to promulgate Ordinances during recess of Legislature
[After article 239A of the Constitution, the following article shall be inserted through Constitution (Twenty-Seventh Amendment) Act, 1971]
240. Power of President to make regulations for certain Union territories
Provided that when any body is created under article 239A to function as a Legislature for the Union territories of Pondicherry, the President shall not make any regulation for the peace, progress and good Government of that Union territory with effect from the date appointed for the first meeting of the Legislature:Provided further that whenever the body functioning as a Legislature for the Union territory ofPondicherry is dissolved, or the functioning of that body as such Legislature remains suspended on account of any action taken under any such law as is referred to in clause (1) of article 239A, the President may, during the period of such dissolution or suspension, make regulations for the peace, progress and good Government of that Union territory.
241. High Courts for Union territories
242. Coorg
Repealed by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, section 29 and Schedule
Part IX – The Panchayats
243. Definitions
In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires,–
[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992, was a significant reform in the Constitution of India. It introduced the concept of gram panchayats, which is a third-level government that deals directly with the public and works to address problems at the grass-roots level. Article 243 (b) defines the gram sabha, which consists of persons registered on the electoral rolls. It is the basic unit of the Panchayati Raj Institution. This institution is empowered to perform various functions at the village level, including establishing schools and health facilities. This act granted constitutional status to panchayats and democratized decentralization. It also empowered panchayats at all levels to levy taxes and collect duties. It further ensures that people at the grassroots level are more engaged in the governance process. It focused on improving rural political structures and the rights of vulnerable populations. The Act emphasized the need for women to be a part of local government structures. This law made it simpler for women to get involved in politics by giving them greater possibilities. The act also made women eligible to serve as Panchayat members. This amendment Act of Indian Constitution also made provisions for reserving seats for SC/ST/OBC communities and women in the legislature. In addition, it removed the upper population limit in parliamentary constituencies.Also Refer]
243A. Gram Sabha
A Gram Sabha may exercise such powers and perform such functions at the village level as the Legislature of a State may by law, provide.
243B. Constitution of Panchayats
243C. Composition of Panchayats
243D. Reservation of seats
in every Panchayat and the number of seats so reserved shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the, total number of seats to be filled by direct election in that Panchayat as the population of the Scheduled Castes in that Panchayat area or of the Scheduled Tribes in that Panchayat area bears to the total population of that area and such seats may be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Panchayat.
243E. Duration of Panchayats, etc.
Provided that where the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Panchayat would have continued is less than six months, it shall not be necessary to hold any election under this clause for constituting the Panchayat.
243F. Disqualifications for membership
Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the ground that be is less than twenty-five years of age, if he has attained the age of twenty-one years;
243G. Powers, authority and responsibilities of Panchayats
Subject to the provisions of this Constitution the Legislature of a State may, by law, endow the Panchayats with such powers and authority and may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-government and such law may contain provisions for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon Panchayats, at the appropriate level, subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, with respect to–
243H. Powers to impose taxes by, and funds of, the Panchayats
The Legislature of a State may, by law,–
243I. Constitution of Finance Commissions to review financial position
243J. Audit of accounts of Panchayats
The Legislature of a State may, by law, make provisions with respect to the maintenance of accounts by the Panchayats and the auditing of such accounts.
243K. Elections to the Panchayats
243L. Application to Union Territories
The provisions of this Part shall apply to the Union territories and shall, in their application to a Union territory, have effect as if the references to the Governor of a State were references to the Administrator of the Union territory appointed under 239 and references to the Legislature or the Legislative Assembly of a State were references, in relation to a Union territory having a Legislative Assembly, to that Legislative Assembly:Provided that the President may, by public notification, direct that the provisions of this Part shall apply to any Union territory or part thereof subject to such exceptions and modifications as he may specify in the notification.
243M. Part not to apply to certain areas
[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Eighty-third Amendment) Act,2000, removed the requirement for reservation of seats in Panchayats for members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in the state of Arunachal Pradesh. This state is exclusively composed of members of tribal societies. Under the new law, the state’s name was changed to Arunachal Pradesh Tribal Development Council.Also Refer]
243N. Continuance of existing laws and Panchayats
Notwithstanding anything in this Part, any provision of any law relating to Panchayats in force in a State immediately before commencement of the Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992, which is inconsistent with the provisions of this pan, shall continue to be in force until amended or repealed by a competent Legislature, other competent authority or until the expiration of one year from such commencement whichever is earlier:Provided that all the Panchayats existing immediately before such commencement shall continue till the expiration of their duration, unless sooner dissolved by a resolution passed to that effect by the Legislative Assembly of that State or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, by each house of the Legislature of that State.
243O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution–
Part IXA – The Municipalities
243P. Definitions
In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires,–
[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Seventy-fourth Amendment) Act, 1992, dealt with the devolution of power into the systems of Municipalities or Urban Local Governments. It mandated the setting up and devolution of powers to Urban local bodies (ULBs) or city governments as the lowest unit of governance in cities and towns. This landmark initiative of the Government of India was built upon the premise that all ‘power’ in a democracy rightfully belongs to ‘the people’. Power was mandated to be given to the people via the local bodies (referred to as municipalities), namely Municipal Corporations, Councils and Nagar Panchayats, which would have representatives that are elected regularly and have a decisive role in planning, provision and delivery of services. This Act prescribes institutional changes as well, with the setting up of Ward Committees, District Planning Committees and Metropolitan Planning Committees to coordinate planning across jurisdictions, as well as the setting up of State Election Commissions and State Financial Commissions. Effectively, this act gives ULBs a role much larger than just that of service providers that provide water, waste management, electricity, and so on.Also Refer]
243Q. Constitution of Municipalities
in accordance with the provisions of this Part:Provided that a Municipality under this clause may not be constituted in such urban area or part thereof as the Governor may, having regard to the size of the area and the municipal services being provided or proposed to be provided by an industrial establishment in that area and such other factors as he may deem fit, by public notification, specify to be an industrial township.
243R. Composition of Municipalities
Provided that the persons referred to in paragraph (i) shall not have the right to vole in the meetings of the Municipality;
243S. Constitution and Composition of Wards Committees, etc.
243T. Reservation of seats
243U. Duration of Municipalities, etc.
Provided that where the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Municipality would have continued is less than six months, it shall not be necessary to hold any election under this clause for constituting the Municipality for such period.
243V. Disqualifications for membership
243W. Powers, authority and responsibilities of Municipalities, etc.
Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, endow–
243X. Power to impose taxes by, and Funds, of, the Municipalities
The Legislature of a State may, by law–
243Y. Finance Commission
243Z. Audit of accounts of Municipalities
The Legislature of a State may, by law, make provisions with respect to the maintenance of accounts by the Municipalities and the auditing of such accounts.
243ZA. Elections to the Municipalities
243ZB. Application to Union territories
The Provisions of this Part shall apply to the Union territories and shall, in their application to a Union territory, have effect as if the references to the Governor of a State were references to the Administrator of the Union territory appointed under article 239 and references to the Legislature or the Legislative Assembly of a State were references in relation to a Union territory having a Legislative Assembly, to that Legislative Assembly:Provided that the President may, by public notification, direct that the provisions of this Part shall apply to any Union territory or part thereof subject to such exceptions and modifications as he may specify in the notification.
243ZC. Part not to apply to certain areas
243ZD. Committee for district planning
Provided that not less than four-fifths of the total number of members of such Committee shall be elected by, and from amongst, the elected members of the Panchayat at the district level and of the Municipalities in the district in proportion to the ratio between the population of the rural areas and of the urban areas in the district;
243ZE. Committee for Metropolitan Planning
Provided that not less than two-thirds of the members of such Committee shall be elected by, and from amongst, the elected members of the Municipalities and Chairpersons of the Panchayats in the, Metropolitan area in proportion to the ratio between the population of the Municipalities and of the Panchayats in that area;
243ZF. Continuance of existing laws and Municipalities
Notwithstanding anything in this Part, any provision of any law relating to Municipalities in force in a State immediately before the commencement of the Constitution (Seventy-fourth Amendment) Act, 1992, which is inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall continue to be in force until amended or repealed by a competent Legislature or other competent authority or until the expiration of one year from such commencement, whichever is earlier:Provided that all the Municipalities existing immediately before such commencement shall continue till the expiration of their duration, unless sooner dissolved by a resolution passed to that effect by the Legislative Assembly of that State or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, by each House of the Legislature of that State.
243ZG. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,–
Part IXB – The Cooperative Societies
243ZH. Definitions
In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires,–
[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Ninety-seventh Amendment) Act, 2011,defines different terms associated with co-operative societies, namely multi-state co-operative society and state-level co-operative society.Also Refer]
243ZI. Incorporation of co-operative societies
Subject to the provisions of this Part, the Legislature of a State may, by law, make provisions with respect to the incorporation, regulation and winding up of co-operative societies based on the principles of voluntary formation, democratic member-control, member-economic participation and autonomous functioning.[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Ninety-seventh Amendment) Act, 2011,the provision of management, incorporation and ceasing of co-operative society is a matter of state legislature. Also Refer]
243ZJ. Number and term of members of board and its office bearers
243ZK. Election of members of board
243ZL. Supersession and suspension of board and interim management
Provided further that the board of any such co-operative society shall not be superseded or kept under suspension where there is no Government shareholding or loan or financial assistance or any guarantee by the Government:Provided also that in case of a co-operative society carrying on the business of banking, the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949(10 of 1949) shall also apply:Provided also that in case of a co-operative society, other than a multi-State co-operative society, carrying on the business of banking the provisions of this clause shall have the effect as if for the words “six months”, the words “one year” had been substituted.
243ZM. Audit of accounts of co-operative societies
243ZN. Convening of general body meetings
The Legislature of a State may, by law, make provisions that the annual general body meeting of every co-operative society shall be convened within a period of six months of close of the financial year to transact the business as may be provided in such law.[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Ninety-seventh Amendment) Act, 2011,the Society’s General Body Meeting must be held within six months of the financial year’s end to do any business that may be specified under such legislation.Also Refer]
243ZO. Right of a member to get information
243ZP. Returns
Every co-operative society shall file returns, within six months of the close of every financial year, to the authority designated by the State Government including the following matters, namely:–
[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Ninety-seventh Amendment) Act, 2011,every member of the cooperative society is likely to provide file returns to the authorized personnel within six months of the financial year’s end.Also Refer]
243ZQ. Offences and penalties
[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Ninety-seventh Amendment) Act, 2011,the provision to offer a penalty for any offence against the cooperative societies.Also Refer]
243ZR. Application to multi-State cooperative societies
The provisions of this Part shall apply to the multi-State co-operative societies subject to the modification that any reference to “Legislature of a State”, “State Act” or “State Government” shall be construed as a reference to “Parliament”, “Central Act” or “the Central Government” respectively.[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Ninety-seventh Amendment) Act, 2011, multi-State Cooperative Societies are subject to the provisions of Article 243ZR with the amendment that State Government, State Act, and State Legislature shall be interpreted as Parliament, Central Government, or State Act, as applicable.Also Refer]
243ZS. Application to Union territories
The provisions of this Part shall apply to the Union territories and shall, in their application to a Union territory, having no Legislative Assembly as if the references to the Legislature of a State were a reference to the administrator thereof appointed under article 239 and, in relation to a Union territory having a Legislative Assembly, to that Legislative Assembly:Provided that the President may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that the provisions of this Part shall not apply to any Union territory or part thereof as he may specify in the notification.[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Ninety-seventh Amendment) Act, 2011,it makes provision for the Union territories and states that the references to the Legislature of a State in a Union territory with a Legislative Assembly refer to that Legislative Assembly and that references to the Administrator of that territory appointed under Article 239 in a Union territory without a Legislative Assembly refer to that Administrator.Also Refer]
243ZT. Continuance of existing laws
Notwithstanding anything in this Part, any provision of any law relating to co-operative societies in force in a State immediately before the commencement of the Constitution (Ninety-seventh Amendment) Act, 2011, which is inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall continue to be in force until amended or repealed by a competent Legislature or other competent authority or until the expiration of one year from such commencement, whichever is less.[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Ninety-seventh Amendment) Act, 2011,no matter what is stated in this Part, any provision of a law relating to cooperative societies that were in effect in a State before the Constitution (Ninety-seventh Amendment) Act of 2011 went into effect and conflicts with the provisions of this Part shall continue to be in effect until revised or revoked by a competent Legislature or any other authorized person or until the passing of one year after such commencement, whichever is shorter.Also Refer]
Part X – The Scheduled and Tribal Areas
244. Administration of Scheduled Areas and Tribal Areas
244A. Formation of an autonomous State comprising certain tribal areas in Assam and creation of local Legislature or Council of Ministers or both therefor
or both with such constitution, powers and functions, in each case, as may be specified in the law.
Part XI – Relations between the Union and the States
245. Extent of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States
246. Subject-matter of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States
246A. Special provision with respect to goods and services tax.—
247. Power of Parliament to provide for the establishment of certain additional courts
Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, Parliament may by law provide for the establishment of any additional courts for the better administration of laws made by Parliament or of any existing laws with respect to a matter enumerated in the Union List.
248. Residuary powers of legislation
249. Power of Parliament to legislate with respect to a matter in the State List in the national interest
250. Power of Parliament to legislate with respect to any matter in the State List if a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation
251. Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament under articles 249 and 250 and laws made by the Legislatures of States
Nothing in articles 249 and 250 shall restrict the power of the Legislature of a State to make any law which under this Constitution it has power to make, but if any provision of a law made by the legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament has under either of the said articles power to make, the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the legislature of the State, shall prevail, and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall to the extent of the repugnancy, but so long only as the law made by Parliament continues to have effect, be inoperative.
252. Power of Parliament to legislate for two or more States by consent and adoption of such legislation by any other State
253. Legislation for giving effect to international agreements
Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, Parliament has power to make any law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any international conference, association or other body.
254. Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States
255. Requirements as to recommendations and previous sanctions to be regarded as matters of procedure only
No Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of a State and no provision in any such Act, shall be invalid by reason only that some recommendation or previous sanction required by this Constitution was not given, if assent to that Act was given-
256. Obligation of States and the Union
The executive power of every State shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament and any existing laws which apply in that State, and the executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose.
257. Control of the Union over States in certain cases
257A. Assistance to States by deployment of armed forces or other forces of the Union [Repealed]
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the Parliament may by law provide for the establishment of any additional courts for the better administration of laws made by Parliament or of any existing laws with respect to a matter enumerated in the Union List.[Repealed by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, section 33 (w.e.f. 20-6-1979).][Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, he President of India was made to be bound to the Cabinet of Ministers. Under this article Central Forces can be deployed by the Central Government in states facing law and order discord.Also Refer][Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, repealed Article 19 (1) (f) and also took out Article 31(1) has been taken out of Part III and made a separate Article 300A in Chapter IV of Part XII. This amendment may have taken away the scope of speedy remedy under Article 32 for the violation of Right to Property because it is no more a Fundamental Right. Making it a legal right under the Constitution serves two purposes: Firstly, it gives emphasis to the value of socialism included in the preamble and secondly, in doing so, it conformed to the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution. Also Refer]
258. Power of the Union to confer powers, etc., on States in certain cases
258A. Power of the States to entrust functions to the Union
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the Governor of a State may, with the consent of the Government of India, entrust either conditionally or unconditionally to that Government or to its officers functions in relation to any matter to which the executive power of the State extends.[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, this deals with the authority of the President to delegate Union duties to a State Government or its representatives. The addition of this gave state governors the authority to delegate Union duties to the central government or its representatives.Also Refer ]
259. Armed Forces in States in Part B of the First Schedule
Repealed by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, section 29 and Schedule
260. Jurisdiction of the Union in relation to territories outside India
The Government of India may by agreement with the Government of any territory not being part of the territory of India undertake any executive, legislative or judicial functions vested in the Government of such territory, but every such agreement shall be subject to, and governed by, any law relating to the exercise of foreign jurisdiction for the time being in force.
261. Public acts, records and judicial proceedings
262. Adjudication of disputes relating to waters, of inter-State rivers or river valleys
Disputes relating to Waters
263. Provisions with respect to an inter-State Council
Co-ordination between StatesIf at any time it appears to the President that the public interests would be served by the establishment of a Council charged with the duty of–
it shall be lawful for the President by order to establish such a Council, and to define the nature of the duties to be performed by it and its organisation and procedure.
Part XII – Finance, Property, Contracts and Suits
264. Interpretation
In this Part, “Finance Commission” means a Finance Commission constituted under article 280.
265. Taxes not to be imposed save by authority of law
No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.