Download Landmark Cases in Indian Constitutional Law: Article 12 and Fundamental Rights and more Assignments Law in PDF only on Docsity!
Landmark cases:
Article 12 in Constitution of India
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 1967 wherein 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. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board. In this case the Agriculturists who were affected by the acquisition of land in different villages approached the High Court of Karnataka for a direction on the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board^1 to refrain 1
- Right to Livelihood: The petitioners argued that the right to livelihood is inherent in the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Depriving them of their homes would directly impact their livelihood, making life unlivable.
- Violation of Fundamental Rights: The petitioners also argued that the eviction violated Articles 19(1)(e) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantee the right to reside and settle in any part of India and the right to practice any profession, or carry on any occupation, trade, or business. **#### **Arguments****
- Petitioners: Eviction from the pavement or slums would deprive them of their livelihood, thus violating their right to life under Article 21. They also claimed that the eviction was arbitrary and lacked any fair or reasonable procedure.
- Respondents: The State and Municipal Corporation argued that no one has the legal right to encroach on public property, and that the removal of such encroachments was necessary for public safety, health, and convenience. **#### **Judgment****
- Right to Livelihood: The Supreme Court recognized that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to livelihood. The Court held that no person can live without the means of living, and thus, the right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life.
- Procedure Established by Law: The Court emphasized that any deprivation of life, including livelihood, must be in accordance with a procedure established by law. Such a procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable—not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive.
- Natural Justice: The Court held that the eviction of pavement dwellers without providing alternative accommodation would be unfair. It directed the government to provide alternative accommodation to those who were being evicted.
- Validity of Section 314 of BMC Act: The Court interpreted Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act as an enabling provision that allowed the Commissioner to remove encroachments, but it did not mandate the removal of encroachments without prior notice. The Court found that such actions must comply with principles of natural justice. It is far too well settled to admit of any argument that the procedure prescribed by law for the deprivation of the right conferred by Article 21 must be fair, just and reasonable. Just as a
mala fide act has no existence in the eye of law, even so, unreasonableness vitiates law and procedure alike. It is therefore essential that the procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his fundamental right, must conform to the means of justice and fair play. Procedure, which is unjust or unfair in the circumstances of a case, attracts the vice of unreasonableness, thereby vitiating the law which prescribes that procedure and consequently, the action taken under it. Any action taken by a public authority which is invested with statutory powers has, therefore, to be tested by the application of two standards: The action must be within the scope of the authority conferred by law and secondly, it must be reasonable. If any action, within the scope of the authority conferred by law, is found to be unreasonable, it must mean that the procedure established by law under which that action is taken is itself unreasonable. **#### **Conclusion**** The Supreme Court allowed the petitioners to assert their right to livelihood as part of the right to life. It acknowledged the plight of pavement and slum dwellers and required that they not be evicted without reasonable alternative arrangements. The judgment established a significant precedent in expanding the interpretation of the right to life under Article 21 to include the right to livelihood.
Maneka Gandhi case:
FACTS OF THE CASE
Smt. Maneka Gandhi was holder of passport issued under Passport Act, 1967. She received a letter dated 2nd^ July, 1977 from Regional Passport Officer informing her that her passport has been impounded under Section 10 (3) (c) of the Act in public interest. Smt. Maneka Gandhi requested for statement of reasons for making order for impounding of the passport. The Ministry of External Affairs informed her that it has decided not to furnish a statement of reasons “in interest of the general public”. Smt. Maneka Gandhi challenged the order before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. Interpretation of Personal Liberty
The Court noted that there are two main principles of Natural Justice – Nemo Judex in Sua Causa and audo alteram partem. Natural justice is a great humanizing principle ensuring fairness and has become pervasive in administrative actions. The court held that principle of natural justice is applicable to both quasi-judicial bodies and administrative bodies. **M C MEHTA CASES-
**Summary: M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors.****
Case Overview: This landmark case, M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors., is a significant milestone in Indian environmental law, particularly for the application of the Public Trust Doctrine, the Polluter Pays Principle, and the Principle of Deterrence. The case involved the construction of a hotel by Span Motels Pvt. Ltd., owned by Kamal Nath's family, which led to environmental degradation along the Beas River. Public Trust Doctrine: The Supreme Court, in this case, applied the Public Trust Doctrine, which holds that the government is the trustee of all natural resources, such as land, water, and air, for public use. The doctrine prevents the government from transferring these resources to private entities for commercial purposes, ensuring that they are preserved for public enjoyment and environmental protection. Judgment: The Court ruled that the construction by Span Motels Pvt. Ltd. was illegal and violated the Public Trust Doctrine. The Court ordered the Himachal Pradesh government to reclaim the land and restore it to its natural state. The hotel was also directed to pay for environmental damages under the Polluter Pays Principle and was penalized under the Principle of Deterrence to prevent future violations. Conclusion:
This case is a landmark in Indian environmental jurisprudence, establishing the Public Trust Doctrine as a key principle in the protection of natural resources. The judgment reinforced the state's responsibility to safeguard the environment, ensuring that natural resources are managed for the benefit of the public and not exploited for private gain. M C MEHTA V. UOI 1988- Case Summary: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (1996) Background: The case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India is a landmark environmental case that dealt with protecting the Badkhal and Surajkund lakes in Haryana from environmental degradation due to unchecked construction activities. M.C. Mehta, a public interest lawyer, petitioned the Supreme Court to prevent further environmental harm to these ecologically sensitive areas. Key Issues:
- Whether the ongoing construction activities within a 5 km radius of the Badkhal and Surajkund lakes should be stopped to preserve the environment and control pollution.
- Application of the "Precautionary Principle" and "Polluter Pays Principle" in protecting these lakes. Arguments: Petitioner (M.C. Mehta): Argued that the construction activities disrupted the ecological balance and contributed to pollution, violating the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Respondents (Union of India & Others): Various parties, including builders and the Haryana Urban Development Authority, contended that their construction activities were legal and that the Court’s direction was arbitrary. Judgment: The Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling applying the "Public Trust Doctrine," "Precautionary Principle," and "Polluter Pays Principle" to protect the lakes from further environmental degradation. The Court ordered:
- Ban on Construction: No further construction of any type was permitted within the designated green belt area around the lakes as marked in the provided plans (Ex. A
o M C Mehta filed a case in the SC regarding the leakage of oleum gas from the Shriram Food and Fertilizer Industry in Delhi. o This case led to the development of the concept of " absolute liability " in environmental law, making industries responsible for any harm caused by their operations, regardless of negligence. M C Mehta v. Union of India (1996): o This is also known as Taj Trapezium Case. o This case focused on the environmental degradation and pollution in and around the Taj Mahal in Agra, India. o The SC issued various directions to control air pollution and industrial activities in the Taj Trapezium Zone , with the aim of preserving the iconic monument including closing of all emporia and shops functioning within the Taj premises along with giving rights to workmen. M C Mehta v. Union of India (1992) : o It is also known as the Stone Crushing Units Case. o M C Mehta filed a case regarding the operation of stone crushing units in Haryana. o The court directed the closure of the stone crushers operating in violation of environmental norms and imposed strict regulations to control air and water pollution caused by these units M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu And Others (1996): o It is also known as the Child Labour Case. o The SC constituted a committee to oversee the child labor in match factories along with other hazardous factories. o The committee gave several recommendations to prevent fatal accidents due to child labor. o The committee recommended that the State of Tamil Nadu should be directed to ensure that children are not employed in fireworks factories. o The committee also recommended 6 hours of working, child employment in only packing work, facilities for recreation, socialization and education, insurance etc. The Wednesbury Principle states that if a decision is so unreasonable that no sensible authority could ever take it, such decisions are liable to be quashed through judicial review. This sets out the standard of reasonableness to be followed by public bodies in their decisions. i.e., doctrine of proportionality. Art.14.
Issue 1 Locus standi- Bodhisatta Gautam not so relevant facts S p gupta not so relevant facts FRs- T N Godavarman v. uoi: Upon establishing the infringement of their fundamental right, the court is obligated to issue an appropriate writ in the petitioner’s favor, leaving no room for discretion. In 1995, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad filed a writ petition with the Supreme Court of India to protect the Nilgiris forest land from deforestation caused by illegal timber operations. The case, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India & Ors. (1997) 2 SCC 267, focused on whether the Central Government had the authority to regulate the use of forest land for non-forestry activities. The court ruled in favor of Thirumulpad, directing the sustainable use of the forest and establishing an implementation system. Alternative remedy: Romesh Thappar v State of Madras: Issue 1: Direct Approach to Supreme Court under Article 32 The case addressed whether the ban violated his fundamental rights. The Supreme Court of India upheld Thappar’s right to directly approach the Supreme Court under Article 32, without prior recourse to the High Court and declared Section 9(1-A) unconstitutional. This case set an important precedent for the protection of free speech in India. The primary question in Romesh Thappar v State of Madras at hand was whether the petitioner had the right to directly approach the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution without initially seeking relief from the respective High Court under Article
**principles of justice, equity, and fair play as required under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The exercise of executive power must be fair and reasonable, especially when affecting the livelihood of citizens.
Held:
The Supreme Court quashed the government's order dated 9th August 2002, except for cases referred to an independent committee. The Court held that the en masse cancellation of allotments was arbitrary, unjustified, and violative of Article 14. It directed the formation of a committee to examine the 413 alleged tainted allotments on a case-by-case basis. The Court emphasized that the government should have conducted an independent probe into the alleged tainted allotments rather than cancelling all allotments. The arbitrary cancellation was seen as a panic reaction and not in the interest of justice.** Hansraj H Jain v. state of Maharashtra , it has been held that that the government and other public authorities must act reasonably and fairly and that each action of such authorities must pass the test of reasonableness. EIA- Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab originated from the sentencing of Bachan Singh to death for the murder of three individuals in 1979. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of the death penalty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. it was established that the rule of law which permeates the entire fabric of the Indian constitution excludes arbitrariness. Wherever we find arbitrariness or unreasonableness there is denial of rule of law. Art. 14 enacts primarily a guarantee against arbitrariness and inhibits state action, Every state action must be non-arbitrary and reasonable. Otherwise, the court would strike it down as invalid. Union of India & Ors. vs. Dinesh Engineering Corporation & Anr. (2001) Facts: Dinesh Engineering Corporation, a manufacturer of spare parts for GE governors used by Indian Railways, challenged the Railways' policy decision to source these parts exclusively
from Engineering Devices & Controls (EDC) on a proprietary basis, alleging that it created a monopoly and was arbitrary. Issue: Whether the Railways' policy to purchase spare parts exclusively from EDC was arbitrary and discriminatory, and whether the rejection of Dinesh Engineering's tender was justified. Rule: Policy decisions by public authorities must not be arbitrary or discriminatory and must comply with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The authorities must consider all relevant facts and cannot exclude competent suppliers without valid reasons. Held: The Supreme Court held that the Railways' policy creating a monopoly in favor of EDC was arbitrary and lacked proper consideration of relevant facts, including the competence of Dinesh Engineering. The Court quashed the policy and directed that future purchases of governor spares be made through public tenders, with offers considered on merit REASONED DECI- Mohinder singh v. UOI: acts: Mohinder Singh Gill, a candidate in a parliamentary election, was close to winning when mob violence disrupted the counting process, leading to the destruction of ballot papers and boxes. The Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) responded by canceling the entire poll and ordering a re-poll for the whole constituency, citing the vitiation of the election process due to the violence. Issue: The main issues were whether the CEC had the authority to cancel the entire election and order a re-poll and whether this decision could be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution. Rule: Article 324 of the Constitution grants the Election Commission the authority to supervise and conduct elections to ensure they are free and fair. Article 329(b) bars the questioning of an election process except through an election petition after the results have been declared. Held: The Supreme Court held that the CEC's order was within the powers conferred by Article 324 and could not be challenged under Article 226 due to the bar under Article
Olga tellis Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh The 1985 Supreme Court case Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh was a landmark judgment that raised questions about the balance between economic development and environmental protection: Facts The Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra (RLEK) petitioned the Supreme Court to shut down illegal and unauthorized limestone quarries in the Mussoorie Hill range in the Doon Valley of Dehradun. The RLEK argued that the quarries were polluting the environment, harming water springs, and posing a health hazard to humans and other living things. Ruling The court ruled that: Category C limestone quarries should be shut down without liability, and any existing leases should be terminated Category B limestone quarries should be closed immediately Stone quarrying in the Doon Valley should be generally stopped, except where necessary for defense or to protect foreign exchange The court would form an independent expert committee to inspect the quarries The court would establish a superintending body to regulate the area's environment and ecology Significance The case brought attention to the need to integrate environmental concerns into constitutional rights, and to the question of whether the right to life includes the right to a healthy environment. The Supreme Court's decision emphasized the right to a healthy environment under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Vellore citizens forum:
Facts: The Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum filed a public interest petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution against the extensive pollution caused by tanneries and other industries in Tamil Nadu. The tanneries were discharging untreated effluent into agricultural lands, waterways, and the Palar river, leading to severe environmental degradation, including the contamination of drinking water and destruction of arable land. Issues:
- Whether the tanneries' actions, leading to environmental degradation, violated constitutional and statutory provisions related to environmental protection.
- Whether the "Polluter Pays" principle and the "Precautionary Principle" should be enforced to hold the tanneries accountable. Rule: The Court applied the "Polluter Pays" principle, holding that the entities responsible for pollution must bear the cost of remediation. The "Precautionary Principle" was also enforced, placing the burden of proof on the tanneries to demonstrate that their actions were environmentally benign. Held: The Supreme Court held that the tanneries were liable for the environmental damage caused. The Court ordered the closure of non-compliant tanneries and mandated that they bear the costs of restoring the damaged environment. The judgment emphasized that the onus of proof is on the respondents (tanneries) to show that their actions are environmentally benign, affirming that environmental protection is a fundamental aspect of sustainable developmen The Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) v. Union of India case was a landmark ruling on the construction of dams along the Narmada River in India. The case's key points include: Dam construction The court permitted the construction of the dam up to 90 meters, but required further environmental approvals for any construction higher than that. Rehabilitation and resettlement The court ordered the states involved to complete the rehabilitation and resettlement of people displaced by the dam construction. Environmental and human rights
