Introduction
The Constitution of India is the supreme law of the land, providing the legal framework for governance, fundamental rights, directive principles, and the separation of powers. The All India Bar Examination (AIBE) requires law students to have a strong understanding of constitutional provisions and landmark judgments that have shaped Indian jurisprudence.
In this session, we will cover key constitutional principles, landmark cases, their facts, judgments, and conclusions, helping students gain a solid foundation for their AIBE preparation.
1. Basic Structure Doctrine
Case: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Facts:
- The Kerala government passed the Land Reforms Act, which limited the property rights of individuals.
- Swami Kesavananda Bharati, head of the Edneer Mutt, challenged this under Article 26, which protects religious institutions.
- The case questioned whether Parliament had unlimited power to amend the Constitution.
Judgment:
- The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot alter its “basic structure.”
- Established the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring that certain constitutional principles (e.g., democracy, rule of law, secularism) remain unaltered.
Conclusion:
This case limited Parliament’s amending powers under Article 368, preserving the core identity of the Constitution.
2. Right to Equality (Article 14)
Case: Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) – Mandal Commission Case
Facts:
- The Mandal Commission (1979) recommended 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in government jobs.
- The government implemented the recommendation, leading to nationwide protests.
- The case questioned whether reservations violated the right to equality under Article 14.
Judgment:
- The Supreme Court upheld OBC reservations but imposed a 50% cap on total reservations.
- Economic criteria cannot be the sole basis for reservation.
- Creamy layer (affluent OBCs) should be excluded from reservation benefits.
Conclusion:
This case balanced affirmative action and equality, ensuring that reservation policies serve truly disadvantaged groups.
3. Fundamental Rights vs. Directive Principles
Case: Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
Facts:
- The 42nd Amendment (1976) gave Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) supremacy over Fundamental Rights.
- Minerva Mills, a textile company, challenged the amendment, arguing that it violated the Constitution’s Basic Structure.
Judgment:
- Fundamental Rights and DPSPs must be balanced; DPSPs cannot override Fundamental Rights.
- Struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment that weakened judicial review and democracy.
Conclusion:
This case reinforced the supremacy of Fundamental Rights and ensured a balance between individual rights and state policies.
4. Freedom of Speech & Expression (Article 19)
Case: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – Section 66A of IT Act
Facts:
- Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 allowed arrests for posting “offensive” content online.
- Two women were arrested for a Facebook post criticizing a bandh after Bal Thackeray’s death.
- The case challenged whether Section 66A violated the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Judgment:
- The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional, calling it vague and arbitrary.
- Distinction between free speech and incitement to violence reaffirmed.
Conclusion:
This case protected digital freedom of speech and prevented arbitrary restrictions on online expression.
5. Right to Life & Personal Liberty (Article 21)
Case: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts:
- Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without explanation by the government.
- She challenged it under Article 21, arguing that “personal liberty” included the right to travel.
Judgment:
- The Supreme Court ruled that “personal liberty” covers all fundamental freedoms.
- Due process must be followed before depriving a person of their liberty.
Conclusion:
This case expanded the scope of Article 21, ensuring that any restriction on liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable.
6. Right to Privacy
Case: K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Facts:
- The Aadhaar scheme required citizens to provide biometric data for government benefits.
- The petitioner argued that this violated the right to privacy.
Judgment:
- The Supreme Court recognized the Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right under Article 21.
- Aadhaar can be used for welfare schemes but cannot be mandatory for banking and telecom services.
Conclusion:
This case solidified privacy as a fundamental right, affecting data protection and surveillance laws.
7. Secularism and Religious Rights
Case: S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Facts:
- The Karnataka government was dismissed under Article 356 for promoting Hindutva ideology.
- The case questioned whether secularism is a part of the Constitution’s Basic Structure.
Judgment:
- Secularism is a Basic Structure of the Constitution.
- State governments cannot promote any particular religion.
Conclusion:
The case strengthened secular governance and restricted the misuse of Article 356.
Conclusion
These landmark cases shape Indian constitutional law, ensuring the protection of fundamental rights, democracy, and the rule of law.
Welcome to your AIBE Constitutional Law preparation! 📚 I’ll ensure you understand key constitutional provisions, landmark cases, and important principles to ace the exam.
📌 Key Focus Areas for AIBE Constitutional Law Section:
- Preamble & Basic Structure Doctrine
- Fundamental Rights (Articles 12-35)
- Directive Principles of State Policy (Articles 36-51)
- Fundamental Duties (Article 51A)
- Separation of Powers & Judicial Review
- Centre-State Relations & Emergency Provisions
- Amendment Procedure & Landmark Cases
- Important Doctrines in Constitutional Law
1️⃣ Preamble & Basic Structure Doctrine
Case: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
- Key Issue: Can Parliament amend the Constitution without restrictions?
- Judgment: Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot change its Basic Structure (e.g., democracy, secularism, judicial independence).
- Impact: Limited Parliament’s amending powers under Article 368.
2️⃣ Fundamental Rights (Articles 12-35)
Case: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
- Key Issue: Can the government restrict personal liberty without fair procedure?
- Judgment: Expanded Article 21, ruling that any restriction on liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable.
- Impact: Strengthened due process and protection against arbitrary government actions.
Case: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
- Key Issue: Does Section 66A of the IT Act violate free speech?
- Judgment: Struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional for restricting digital speech.
- Impact: Reinforced freedom of expression (Article 19(1)(a)).
3️⃣ Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)
- Article 39(b) & (c): Equal distribution of resources
- Article 44: Uniform Civil Code (UCC)
- Article 48A: Protection of the environment
Case: Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
- Key Issue: Can Directive Principles override Fundamental Rights?
- Judgment: Fundamental Rights and DPSP must be balanced; DPSP cannot violate Fundamental Rights.
- Impact: Strengthened judicial review.
4️⃣ Fundamental Duties (Article 51A)
- Introduced by 42nd Amendment (1976)
- Not enforceable in courts but guide citizens
- Example: Protecting public property, promoting scientific temper
5️⃣ Judicial Review & Separation of Powers
Case: Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
- Key Issue: Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights?
- Judgment: Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights. (Later modified by Kesavananda Bharati case)
- Impact: Strengthened judicial review.
6️⃣ Centre-State Relations & Emergency Provisions
Case: S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
- Key Issue: Can the President dismiss a state government arbitrarily under Article 356?
- Judgment: Secularism is a part of the Constitution’s Basic Structure; misuse of President’s Rule is unconstitutional.
- Impact: Restricted the misuse of Article 356.
7️⃣ Amendment Procedure (Article 368)
- Types: Simple, Special, Ratification by States
- Important Case: Kesavananda Bharati case (Parliament cannot alter Basic Structure)
8️⃣ Doctrines in Constitutional Law
- Doctrine of Basic Structure → Kesavananda Bharati Case
- Doctrine of Severability → A.K. Gopalan Case
- Doctrine of Eclipse → Bhikaji Narain Dhakras Case
- Doctrine of Pith and Substance → State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara
- Doctrine of Colourable Legislation → K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo Case
📚 Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) on Constitutional Law for AIBE
Below are MCQs covering key topics, landmark cases, and doctrines to help you test your understanding and prepare effectively for the AIBE.
1️⃣ Preamble & Basic Structure Doctrine
Q1. The Preamble of the Indian Constitution was amended by which Constitutional Amendment?
A) 24th Amendment
B) 42nd Amendment
C) 44th Amendment
D) 52nd Amendment
✅ Answer: B) 42nd Amendment
Q2. In which case did the Supreme Court lay down the Basic Structure Doctrine?
A) Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
B) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
C) Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
D) S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
✅ Answer: B) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
2️⃣ Fundamental Rights (Articles 12-35)
Q3. Which Article of the Indian Constitution provides for the Right to Equality?
A) Article 14
B) Article 19
C) Article 21
D) Article 32
✅ Answer: A) Article 14
Q4. The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act in which landmark case?
A) K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
B) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
C) Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
D) A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
✅ Answer: C) Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Q5. The right to privacy was declared a fundamental right in which case?
A) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
B) K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
C) Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
D) Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
✅ Answer: B) K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
3️⃣ Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) & Fundamental Duties
Q6. Which part of the Constitution deals with Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)?
A) Part II
B) Part III
C) Part IV
D) Part V
✅ Answer: C) Part IV
Q7. In which case did the Supreme Court rule that DPSPs cannot override Fundamental Rights?
A) Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
B) Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
C) Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
D) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
✅ Answer: B) Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
4️⃣ Judicial Review & Separation of Powers
Q8. The power of judicial review in India is derived from which Article?
A) Article 13
B) Article 19
C) Article 32
D) Article 226
✅ Answer: A) Article 13
Q9. Which landmark case ruled that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights?
A) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
B) Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
C) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
D) Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
✅ Answer: B) Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
5️⃣ Centre-State Relations & Emergency Provisions
Q10. The President’s Rule (Article 356) can be imposed in a state in case of:
A) Breakdown of Constitutional Machinery
B) Internal Disturbance
C) Financial Emergency
D) Both A & B
✅ Answer: D) Both A & B
Q11. In which case did the Supreme Court restrict misuse of Article 356 (President’s Rule)?
A) Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
B) S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
C) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
D) Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
✅ Answer: B) S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
6️⃣ Amendment Procedure & Doctrines in Constitutional Law
Q12. The amendment procedure is given under which Article?
A) Article 356
B) Article 368
C) Article 13
D) Article 226
✅ Answer: B) Article 368
Q13. The Doctrine of Eclipse was established in which case?
A) A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
B) Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
C) Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955)
D) Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
✅ Answer: C) Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955)
Q14. The Doctrine of Pith and Substance relates to:
A) Federalism and Centre-State Relations
B) Judicial Review
C) Right to Equality
D) Basic Structure of the Constitution
✅ Answer: A) Federalism and Centre-State Relations
7️⃣ Fundamental Rights vs. Reservation & Social Justice
Q15. In Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), the Supreme Court ruled that:
A) Reservations for OBCs are unconstitutional
B) Reservations cannot exceed 50%
C) Economic criteria should be the sole basis for reservation
D) The President has exclusive power to decide reservations
✅ Answer: B) Reservations cannot exceed 50%