Thanks for reading. Please comment the subject on which you want notes. Please share and follow this blog for more law notes.
Monday, 8 June 2020
Short Q & A: Privacy
Thanks for reading. Please comment the subject on which you want notes. Please share and follow this blog for more law notes.
Saturday, 6 June 2020
Article 13 of COI
The State of Madras vs. Srimathi
Champakam:
Facts of the case: An order (known as the Communal G. O.) issued by the Province of Madras regarding to admission of students to the Engineering and Medical Colleges of the State which states that seats should be filled in by the selection committee strictly on the following basis, i.e., out of every 14 seats, 6 were to be allotted to Non-Brahmin (Hindus), 2 to Backward Hindus, 2 to Brahmins, 2 to Harijans. 1 to Anglo-Indians and Indian Christians and 1 to Muslims.
The court held that the Communal G.O. constituted a violation of the fundamental right guaranteed to citizens of India by Art. 29 (2) of the Constitution, namely, that "no citizen shall be denied admission to any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of the State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them” and was therefore void under Art. 13.
Short notes: First Amendment of the Constitution of India
Act: The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951,
Year enacted in: 1951,
Moved by: Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Prime Minister of
India.
Presented in Parliament: on 10 May 1951
Enacted by Parliament: on 18 June 1951
Image Credit: scroll.in
Changes:
(i) several changes to the Fundamental Rights provisions
of the Indian constitution.
(ii) provided against abuse of freedom of speech and
expression,
(iii) validation of zamindari abolition laws, and
(iv) clarified that the right to equality does not bar
the enactment of laws which provide "special consideration" for
weaker sections of society.
(v) set the precedent of amending the Constitution to
overcome judicial judgements impeding fulfilment of the government's perceived
responsibilities to particular policies and programmes.
Freedom of speech: in 1st amendment a
provision was made limiting Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India against
"abuse of freedom of speech and expression". This was based on the landmark
judgment in "Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras" on 26 May 1950.
The Parliament of India noted that in other countries
with written constitutions, freedom of speech and of the press is not regarded
as debarring the State from punishing or preventing abuse of this freedom.
Freedom of trade: The right of citizens of India to practice
any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business conferred by
article 19(1)(g) is subject to reasonable restrictions which the laws of the
State may impose "in the interests of general public".
Upholding land reforms: Though the provisions of clauses
(4) and (6) of article 31 were enacted but the validity of agrarian reform
measures passed by the State Legislatures had formed the subject-matter of
dilatory litigation. The result of which the implementation of these important
measures, affecting large numbers of people, had been held up.
A new article 31A was introduced with retrospective
effect to uphold such measures for implementation of provisions of clauses (4)
and (6) of article 31.
Another new article 31B was introduced to validate 13
enactments relating to zamindari abolition.
Equality
It is laid down in Article 46 as a Directive Principle
of State Policy that the State should promote with special care the educational
and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people and protect them
from social injustice.
In order that any special provision that the State may
make for the educational, economic or social advancement of any backward class
of citizens may not be challenged on the ground of being discriminatory,
article 15(3) was suitably amplified.
Jawaharlal Nehru encouraged the Parliament of India to
pass the amendment in response to State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan,
which went before the Madras High Court and then the Supreme Court of India. In
that case, a Brahmin woman in Madras challenged the state's Communal General
Order, which established caste quotas in government-supported medical and
engineering schools, on the grounds that it denied her equality under the law;
both courts had upheld her petition.
Certain amendments in respect of articles dealing with
the convening and proroguing of the sessions of Parliament were also
incorporated in the Act. So also a few minor amendments in respect of articles
341, 342, 372, and 376.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED IN COI
Tuesday, 2 June 2020
Short Q and A: IT Act
Thanks for reading. Please comment the subject on which you want notes. Please follow and share this blog for more law notes.
Monday, 1 June 2020
Theory of Basic Structure of Constitution
Shankari Prasad Case:
The
question whether fundamental rights can be amended under Article 368 came for
consideration in the Supreme Court in Shankari Prasad case. In this case
validity of constitution (1st amendment) act, 1951 which inserted inter alia,
articles 31-A and 31-B of the constitution was challenged. The amendment was
challenged on the ground that it abridges the rights conferred by Part III and
hence was void. The Supreme Court however rejected the above argument and held
that power to amend including the fundamental rights is contained in Article
368 and the same view was taken by court in Sajjan Singh case.
Golak Nath Case:
In
Golak Nath case, the validity of 17th Amendment which inserted certain acts in
Ninth Schedule was again challenged. The Supreme Court ruled the parliament had
no power to amend Part III of the constitution and overruled its earlier
decision in Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh case. In order to remove
difficulties created by the decision of SC in Golak Nath case parliament
enacted the 24th Amendment act.
Short Q & A: Data protection law
Thanks for reading. Please comment subject on which you want notes. Please share and follow the blog.