Constitution of India Essay

Section 10(3)(c) of the passing dally authorizes the passport authority to impound a Passport if it deems it necessary to do so in the in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, hospitable relations of India with any foreign country, or in the interest of the everyday public. Manekas passport was impounded by the central Government on a lower floor the Passport Act in the interest of the general public.Maneka filed a writ predication challenging the order on the anchor of rape of her Fundamental Rights great deal the st mental strains name 21. One of the major grand of challenge was that the order confiscate the Passport was null and void as it had been made without affording her an opportunity to world heard in her defence. The coquet fixed down a result of propositions seeking to make bind 21 much more than meaning(prenominal) than hitherto. The court reiterated the proposition that oblige 14, 19 and 21 ar non mutually exclusive. A practice of righteousness prescribing a procedure for depriving a psyche of personal indecency has to meet the requirements of Article 19. Also the procedure instinctiveized by practice of law in Article 21 must practice the requirement of Article 14 as well. The expression individualized indecency in Article 21 was given an expansive interpretation. The expression Personal liberty ought not be read in a get and restricted sense so as to exclude those attri butes of personal liberty which atomic number 18 specifically dealt with in Article 19. The right to travel oversea falls down the stairs Article 21. The most signifi bumt and creative view of Maneka scale, is the re-interpretation by the courtroom of the expression procedure established by law used in article 21. Article 21 would no drawn-out mean that law could prescribe some semblance of procedure, however imperative or fanciful, to deprive a person of his personal liberty. It now bureau that th e procedure must satisfy certain requisites in the sense of be fair and reasonable.The procedure give the axenot be arbitrary unfair or unreasonable.As the right to travel abroad falls under art 21, natural justice must be applied while exercising the situation of impounding a Passport under the Passport Act. Although the Passport Act does not expressly fork up for the requirement of hearing before a passport is impounded, yet the said(prenominal) has to be implied therein. lineament 2 Sunil Batra vs. Delhi politics (1980)The accost has given some(prenominal) directives to improve many aspects of prison organization and condition of prisoners. In this example, the act has pointed out that its male monarchs under Art. 32 are unaffixed from the rigid restraints of the traditional English writs. Prison torture is not beyond the reach of the Supreme flirt under Article 32. For this purpose, the homage treats letters from prisoners as writ postulations. In this case, the judicial process was make in motion by a letter written by a prisoner to a Judge of the Supreme Court plain of the brutal attack by the prison staff on a fellow prisoner. Forsaking all adjective formalities, since freedom was at put up, the letter was treated by the Court as a petition for the writ of Habeas Corpus. subject 3 Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secretary fix of Bihar (1979)Hussaainara Khatoon case of the Bihar undertrials started with an article written in Indian Express. An advocate then filed a petition under Article 32 in the Supreme Court to protect the personal liberty of the undertrials. The Supreme Court has situated not bad(p) emphasis on speedy trial of criminal offences and has emphasized It is unsaid in the broad sweep and guinea pig of Article 21. A fair trial implies a speedy trial. No procedure can be reasonable fair or just unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial for de determination of the guilt of much(prenominal) person.The Supreme Court has directed release of all undertrials who have been in jail for periods long-dated than the uttermost term of imprisonment for which they could be sentenced if convicted of the offence charged. The Court too directed that the undertrial prisoners, who are accused of multiple offences and who have already been in jail for the maximum term for which they could be sentenced on conviction, even if the sentences awarded to them were straight and not concurrent, should be released forthwith, since their continued detention clearly violates not solitary(prenominal) human dignity but also their Fundamental Right under Art.21 of the Constitution.The Supreme Court has taken a big innovative look forward in humanizing the administration of criminal justice by suggesting that free legal aid be provided by the State to poor prisoners lining a prison sentence.Case 4 Keshavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973)The State of Kerala passed the Kerala bolt down Reforms Act. 1963. This Act a ffected the interest of the petitioner, Keshavananda Bharati, Swamiji of a mutt. So he filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the composing, contending that his complete rights under Article 14,19(1)(f),25,26 and 31 were violated by the Kerala Land Reforms Act. While the case was pending, the parliament passed three brassal Amendments, viz., 24th, twenty-fifth & twenty-ninth Amendments. The arrangement Twenty-fourth Amendment repealed article 19(1) (f) which read to acquire, hold and slash of property. It also repealed Article 31, i.e., compulsory acquisition of property. It made several other changes. It also included the Kerala Land Reforms Act in the one-ninth schedule, thereby making them immune from attack on the ground of entire rights.As a result, the fundamental right to property was deleted from the constitution. The petitioner matte up that, by these Amendments, he would lose the case in the court. So, he right his writ petition before t he Supreme Court, & challenged the validity of 24th, 25th & 29th Amendments. He contended that though the power of the parliament to amend was wide, it was not unlimited. The power to amend under Article 368 should not empower the parliament to supplant the basic features of the constitution. The Supreme Courts judgment in this case is as followsi) The constitution Twenty-fourth (Amendment) Act, 1971, section 2(a) (b) of the constitution Twenty-fifth (Amendment) Act, and the constitution Twenty-ninth (Amendment) Act are valid. ii) The decision of the majority in Golaknaths case that the word Law in Article 13(2) included Amendments to the constitution & the Article operated as a limitation upon the power to amend the constitution under Article 368 is erroneous, and so, is over command. iii)The power of Amendment includes within itself the power to add, alter or repeal the various Articles of the constitution, including those relating to fundamental rights. iv) There is no power to amend or alter the basic structure of the constitution. v) The First part of the Article 31-C is valid, and the second part of the Article 31-C laying down no law containing a declaration that if it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court on the ground that it doesnt give effect to such policy is invalid. vi) There is no inherent or implied limitations on the power of Amendment under Article 368.Case 5 striving India vs. Nergesh Meerza (1981)A dominion made by Air India, a statutory corporation, fixed the normal age of retirement of air hostesses at 35 yrs but authorized the managing director to extend the same to 45 yrs at his option subject to other conditions being satisfied. The regulation was held bad as it armed the managing director with uncanalized and unguided discretion to extend the age of retirement of any air hostess. No guidelines, principles or norms were laid down subject to which the power was to be exercised. Nor was there an y procedural safeguard available to an air hostess who was denied extension. A regulation providing for termination of service of an airhostess in Air India on her first pregnancy has been held to be arbitrary and abhorrent to the notions of a civilized society.Case 6 Visakha vs. State of Rajasthan (1997)The Supreme Court has say sexual harassment of a functional woman at her place of work as amounting to violation of rights of grammatical gender par and right to life history and liberty which is a clear violation of Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 guarantees right to life with dignity. Accordingly the Court has detect in this connection the meaning and content of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in the constitution of India are of sufficient amplitude to grok all the facets of gender equality including prevention of sexual harassment or abuseSexual harassment also violates the victims fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to practice any profession o r to carry out any occupation, trade or business. therefore Article 32 is attracted. In the absence of any domestic law relating to sexual harassment in India, the Supreme Court has itself laid down under Article 32 some directions for prevention of such harassment. These directions are binding and enforceable and are required to be strictly observed in all work places until suitable legislation is enacted to occupy the field.Case 7 M R Balaji vs. State of Mysore (1963)An order of the Mysore Government issued under Article 15(4) reserved pose for admission to the state Medical and plan colleges for Backward classes(28%) and more Backward classes(22%). This was in addition to the second-stringer of seats for SCs (15%) and for STs (3%). Backward and more half-witted classes were designated on the basis of castes and communities The Supreme Court characterized Article 15(4) as an exception to Article 15(1) (as well as to Article 29(2). The court declared the order bad on several g rounds in this case. The first defect in the Mysore order was that it was based entirely on caste without regard to other relevant factors and this was not allowable under Article 15(4) Secondly, the test adopted by the state to evaluate educational unhurriedness was the basis of the average of student population in the last three high school classes of all high schools in the state in relation to a thousand citizens of that community. This average for the building block state was 6.9 per thousand. The vice of the Mysore order was that it included in the list of backward classes, castes or communities whose average was slightly above, or very near or just below the state average(e.g., Lingayats (7.1) were mentioned in BC list). Thirdly, the court declared that Article 15(4) does not envisage classification between backward and more backward classes as was made by the Mysore order.In Balaji case, the Supreme Court could sense the danger in treating caste as the sole measuring stick for determining social and educational coldness. The importance of the judgment lies in realistically appraising the situation when the court said that economic backwardness would provide a more reliable yardstick for determining social backwardness because more often educational backwardness is the outcome of social backwardness. The court drew distinction between caste and class. An attempt at finding a new basis for ascertaining social and educational backwardness in place of caste is reflected in the Balaji decision.The court also ruled that second-stringer under Article 15(4) should be reasonable. It should not be such as to defeat or nullify the main rule of equality enshrined in Article 15(1). While it would not be possible to declare the exact permissible percentage of reservation, it can be stated in a general and broad way that it ought to be less than 50%.Case 8 Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992) (Mandal Commission Case)The Supreme Court has taken cognizance of many complex but very momentous questions having a bearing on the future welfare and stability of the Indian society. The overall reservation in a year is limited to a maximum of 50% Amongst the classes granted reservation, those who have been benefited from reservation and have thus meliorate their social status (called the creamy layer by the court), should not be allowed to benefit from reservation over and over again. This means that the benefit of reservation should not be misappropriated by the upper crust but that the benefit of reservation should be allowed to filter down to the lowliest so that they whitethorn benefit from reservation to improve their position.The court has said that if a part of IAS, IPS or any other All India Service, his social status rises he is no longer socially disadvantaged. This means that, in effect, a family can avail of the reservation only once. An element of merit has been introduced into the scheme of reservation. o Promotions are t o be merit based and are to be excluded from the reservation rule. o Certain posts are to be excluded from the reservation rule and enlisting to such posts is to be merit based. Minimum standards have to be laid for recruitment to the reserved posts.