Land mark Constitution cases

1. S.n
o
CASE NAME Article/A
mendmen
ts
Subject Involved Decision Remarks
1. Keshavnand
a Bharti v.
State of
Kerela
(AIR 1973
SC 1461)
Art.368 Validity of 24th
, 25th, 29th
amendments to the
Constitution of India was
challenged. The main
question related to the
nature, extent and scope of
amending power of the
parliament under the
Constitution.
[Theory of basic structure]
Constitution can be amended only
to the extent of and in accordance
with the provisions of Art.368.
Some of the provisions of the
constitution of India form its basic
structure which is not amendable
by parliament by its constituent
power under art.368.
See also Indira
Nehru Gandhi v.
Raj Narain AIR
1975 sc 2299,
Minerva mills
ltd. V. UOI AIR
1980 SC1789 &
L.Chandra
Kumar v. UOI
AIR 1997 SC
1125
2. S.R Bommai
v. UOI (AIR
1994 SC
1918)
Art.356 Presidents Rule in States
under Art.356- Grounds &
scope of Judicial review.
Main
contention
[Federalism]
3. State of
West Bengal
v. UOI (AIR
1963 SC
1241)
Art.131 Nature of Indian
Constitution -Federal,
Unitary, Quasi Federal.
[(i)Contract or Agreement
b/w independent &
sovereign units to surrender
partially their authority in
favor of the union;
(ii)supremacy of
Constitution;
(iii)Distribution of Powers
b/w Center & State;
(iv)Supreme authority of
courts to interpret
Constitution]
The power of Union to Legislate in
respect of property situated in the
states even if the states are
regarded qua the union as
sovereign, remained unrestricted.
The right of the center to require
the province to part with property
for the effective performance of
Central functions cannot be
considered as detracting from
provincial autonomy.
In this case
majority held
that
Constitution is
not truly federal
& states are not
sovereign.
However, Subba
Rao, J. In his
dissent treats it
basically
federal.
4. Ram Jawaya
Kapur v.
State of
Punjab (AIR
1955 SC
1241)
Art. 73 &
162, Art.
19 (1)(g)&
19(6).
Theory of separation of
power; art. 73& 162 of the
constitution of India; in the
absence of law, state cannot
monopolize any trade or
business to the total or
partial exclusion of citizens
under art. 19(6) of the
constitution.
The petitioners have no
fundamental right which can be
said to have been infringed by the
action of the govt., the petition is
bound to fail on that ground.
Further, the petitioner has no
fundamental right under art. 19(1)
(g) & the quest. Whether the govt.
Could establish monopoly without

2. any legislation under 19(6) of the
constitution is altogether
immaterial.
5. Kuldeep
Nayar v. UOI
(AIR 2006
SC 3127)
Federal structure of the
Constitution was
questioned on the ground
of Representation of
Peoples Act 2003 by which
the requirement of
“domicile” in the state
concerned for getting
elected to Rajya Sabha was
deleted.
India is not a federal state in the
traditional sense of term. In
context of India, the principle of
federalism is not territory related.
Further, when it comes to
exercising powers, it’s the centre
where the favour is heavily
weighed.
6. State of
Haryana V.
State of
Punjab (AIR
2002 SC
685)
Discussion on the concept
of Federation & the federal
character of India.
A semi federal system of Govt. Has
been adopted under the Indian
constitution.
7. In re
Berubari
Union &
Exchange of
Enclaves
(AIR 1960
SC 858)
Art. 3(c)&
Art 368
Power to cede away Indian
territory in favor of a
foreign country - whether
permissible; Procedure.
The power to diminish the area of
a state does not entitle parliament
to cede Indian territory to a
foreign state. Parliament has no
power art. 3(c) to make a law to
implement an agreement with
govt. Of a foreign state ceding
Indian territory to a foreign State.
Area Diminished under Art. 3(c)
should & must continue to be a
part of territory of India. An
amendment of Constitution,
under Art. 368, to modify the First
schedule to the constitution, is
necessary for ceding Indian
territory to a foreign state.
Add. Readings;
Ram Kishore
sen v. UOI AIR
1966 SC 644,
UOI v. Sukumar
Sengupta AIR
1990 SC 1692.
8. Ram Kishore
Sen v. UOI
(AIR 1966
SC 644)
90th
amendme
nt Act
1960
Constitution (Ninth
Amendment) Act,
1960-Transfer of
certainareas to Pakistan in
fulfillment of India-Pakistan
Agreement
Advisory opinion given by the
apex court in IN Re Berubari Union
& exchange of Enclaves AIR 1960
SC 858 was binding. After receipt
of the advisory opinion in Re
Berubari case, the parliament
passed the constitution (9th)

3. Amendment Act, 1960 to give
effect to Indo pak Agreement. The
validity of the amendment was
challenged alleging that the
language of it so far as it related to
Berubari Union no. 12 was
confusing and incapable of
implementation. It was also
contended that the transfer of
Berubari Union would result in
deprivation of citizenship and
property without compensation.
9. UOI of
Indian v.
Sukumar
Sengupta
AIR 1990 SC
1692
Articles
1,3, 368
andConsti
tution
(Ninth
Amendme
nt)
Act,1960
Constitution of India,
1950: Articles 1, 3,
368 and Constitution
(Ninth Amendment) Act
1960 , Agreements of 1974
& 1982 ,Implementation of
Teen Bigha Whether
involves cession of Indian
territory to Bangladesh
Sovereignty over Dahagram
& Angarpota, Whether
arises.
The Supreme court held that lease
in perpetuity of Teen Bigha in
favor of Bangladesh did not
amount to cessation of Indian
territory and hence legislation not
required .

4. 10. N. Masthan
Sahib v.
Chief
Commission
er of
Pondicherry
(AIR 1962
SC 797)
Art. 1
(3)(c)
Territory of
India-Pondicherry,if part
of India.Question referred
to Union
Government-Answerof
Union Government, if
binding on Courts.Orders
ofauthorities in
Pondicherry; Appeal and
WritPetition,if maintainable
in Supreme
Court-Constitution of India,
Arts. 1 (3), 32 and 136.
SC held term acquired; acquisition
as per public intl law – if public
notification, declaration or
assertion by GoI that part area has
been acquired ;courts bound to
recognize – conversely if GOI
issues statement that part area
not acquired – then also binding
on courts – Art 1(3)(c).
11. R. C Poudyal
v. UOI (AIR
1993 SC
1804)
Art. 2 Reservation in the Sikkim
legislative assembly for
Sikkimese of
"Bhutia-Lepcha" origin and
for "Sangha" Buddhist
Lamaic monasteries was
challenged (the Sangha
reservation also used a
separate electoral roll). The
challengers argued this
reservation violated the
Constitution's essentially
republican and secular
nature and the concept of
"one person-one vote."
Establishment of new state as
Parliament deems fit but cannot
go against theory of basic
structure.
12. Babulal
parate v.
State of
Bombay
(AIR 1960
SC 51)
Art. 3 (b)
to (e) and
Art. 3
(Notes)
Reference of central bills to
States.
Once the original bill is referred to
the state or states, the purpose of
the proviso is served and no fresh
reference is required every time
an amendment to the bill is
moved and accepted according to
the rules of Procedure in
Parliament. Parliament is not
bound to accept or act upon the
views of the state Legislature,
even if those in views are received
in time.

5. 13. U.N.R. Rao
v. Indira
Gandhi (AIR
1971 SC
1002)
Art. 74(1) Is it essential to have a
council of Ministers under
Art. 74(1) even at the time
when the House of the
People has been dissolved
or its term has expired.
Art. 74(1) is mandatory and,
therefore, the President cannot
exercise the executive Power
without the aid and advice of the
CoM. It is essential to have a CoM
under Art. 74(1) even at the time
when the house of the people has
been dissolved or its term has
expired.[in the result the appeal
fails and dismissed]
Note:- Also read
with Art. 52,
Art. 53(2), Art.
75(1), 75 (2),
Art.85 (2) &
Representation
of Peoples Act ,
1951.
14. S.P. Anand v.
H.D. Deve
Gowda (AIR
1997 Sc
272)
Art. 14,
Art. 21 &
Art. 75,
75(5)
Can a person who is not a
member of either of the
House can be appointed as
the Prime Minister of India
[Petition Dismissed] As per the
observations made Art. 75(5)
permits the president to appoint a
person who is not a member of
either House of Parliament as a
Minister, Including a Prime
Minister subject to the possibility
of his commanding the support of
the majority of the members of
Lok sabha.
Art. 75(5)
requires the
person to be
the member for
at least 6
consecutive-e
months .
15. Shamsher
Singh v.
State of
Punjab (AIR
1974 SC
212)
Art.
163,163(1
), 164.
Appellants – Punjab Civil
Service (Judicial Branch) –
Shamsher Singh & Ishwar
Chand Agarwal terminated
by the following order of
the Governor. – Samsher
Singh[ Rule 9 of PCS
(Punishment & Appeals)
Rules, 1952 ]
Ishwar Chand Agarwal [Rule
7(3) in Part D of the
PCS(Judicial Branch) Rules,
1951]
The orders of termination of the
services of the appellants were set
aside.
Court also
referred to Art.
123, 213,
331(2)(c),
356,360 and
said”whenever
the constitution
requires the
satisfaction of
the president or
governor , the
satisfaction is
not personal
but it is the
satisfaction of
the CoM .”

6. 16. M.P Special
Police
Establishme
nt v. State of
M.P.,(2004)
8 SCC 788
A.226,
136 &
142.
Whether a Governor can
act in his discretion and
against the aid and advice
of the council of ministers
in a matter of grant of
sanction for prosecution of
Ministers for offences
under the Prevention of
Corruption Act and/or
under the Indian Penal
code.
It was for the court to arrive at the
conclusion as regards commission
of the offence of conspiracy upon
the material placed on record of
the case during trail which would
include the oral testimonies of the
witnesses. Such a relevant
consideration apparently was
absent in the minds of the Council
of ministers when it passed an
order refusing to grant sanction.
Where of facts the bias becomes
apparent and/or the decision of
council of ministers is shown to be
irrational and based on
non-consideration of relevant
factors, the governor would be
right, on the facts of the case to
act in his discretion and grant
sanction.
It has held that the decision of the
Council of ministers was ex facie
irrational whereas the decision of
the Governor was not.
So the Writ court while exercising
its jurisdiction under Article 226
and also under A.136 and 142 can
pass an appropriate order which
would do complete justice to the
parties.
See. Samsher
Singh v. State of
Punjab [(1974)
2 SCC 831].
17. S.P Gupta v.
Union of
India AIR
1982 SC 149
Judges
Transfer
Case
A.226 &
32
It laid the foundation of
Public Interest Litigation
(PIL)
It court held that any member of
the public having “Sufficient
interest” can maintain an action
for judicial redress for ‘Public
injury’ in relation to any
constitutional or legal provision,
under Article 226 & Article 32, by
a letter addressed to the Court.

7. 18. Epuru
Sudhkar v.
Union of
India, AIR
2006 SC 338
A.72 &
A.161
In this case a congress
worker was convicted for
the murder of a worker of
the Telugu Desham and he
was awarded death
sentence. The state
Governor granted pardon
to him.
The Pardoning powers of the
President under Art. 72 and the
Governors under Art.161 are
subject to judicial review.
Pardoning power cannot be
exercised arbitrarily on the basis
of caste or political reasons.
19. Rameshwar
Prasad v.
Union of
India, AIR
2006 SC 980
A.356 The Constitutional validity
of Notification dated 23
May, 2005 ordering
dissolution of Legislative
Assembly of the state of
Bihar was in issue.
The President proclamation
dissolving state assembly in Bihar
under A.356 were unconstitutional
and based on extraneous and
irrelevant grounds.
Proclamation under A.356 on
“immorality” is not a valid ground.
TOPIC 4- PARLIAMENT
AND STATE
LEGISLATURES
20 B.R.Kapur v.
State of
Tamil Nadu
AIR 2001 SC
3435
“Jayalita
Case”
A.164(1)
& 164(4)
Conviction of a person for
an offence- disqualified to
be a member of the state
legislature. Can such a
person be appointed as
Chief Minister?
A person who is convicted for a
criminal offence and sentenced to
imprisonment for a period of not
less than 2 years cannot be
appointed the Chief Minister of
the state under Articles 164(1)
read with A.164(4) and cannot
continue to function as such.
21. Special
Reference
No. 1 of
2002 (Re
Gujrat
Assembly
Election
Matter), AIR
2003 SC 87
A.356 &
A.143
The President has referred
the important question
regarding interpretation of
A.174 and A.324 to the SC
for it advisory opinion
under A.143 of the
Constitution.
The SC held that A.174 (1) does
not apply to a ‘dissolved assembly’
but to a ‘live assembly’. A.174 (1)
neither relates to elections nor
does it provide any outer limit for
holding elections for constituting
the Assembly. The holding of
elections is the exclusive domain
of election commission under
A.324.
Merely because the time schedule
fixed under A.174 cannot be
adhered to that per se cannot be a
ground for bringing into operation
A.356. Since A.174(1) does not
apply to dissolved legislative

8. assembly and as such there being
no infraction of A.174(1) in
preparing schedule for election by
the commission, the question of
applicability of A.356 does not
arise. The question of declaration
of state emergency under A.356
has no relevance to fixation of
election schedule.
22. Anil kumar
Jha v. UOI
AIR (2005)3
SCC 150
A.164(1) The exercise of the power
under A.164 (1) was in
issue. The Governor of
Jharkhand appointed the
leader of party/political
alliance, not commanding
support of majority of
legislators, as Chief
Minister.
The SS held that it to be an
arbitrary and malafide exercise of
the power by the Governor, which
is a fraud on the constitution. The
Court preponed the floor test to
determine primacy between
contending political alliances and
issued other directions to ensure
fairness of the floor test. Pro tem
speaker of the Assembly was
directed to have proceedings of
the floor test video-recorded and
copy thereof sent to SC.
23. Jaya
Bachchan v.
UOI, AIR
2006 SC 980
‘office of
profit’
A.102(1)(a
) of the
Constituti
on
The Court interpreted the
expression ‘office of profit’
in the context of
disqualification for the
membership of Parliament.
‘Office of Profit’ is an office
which is capable of yielding
a profit of pecuniary gain.
The Apex court upheld her
disqualification from the
membership of Rajya Sabha.
24. Rameshwar
Prasad v.
UOI, AIR
2006 SC 980
“Bihar
Assembly
Dissolution
Case’
A.356 The Constitutional validity
of Notification dated 23
May, 2005 ordering
dissolution of Legislative
Assembly of the state of
Bihar was in issue.
The President proclamation
dissolving state assembly in Bihar
under A.356 was unconstitutional
and based on extraneous and
irrelevant grounds.
Proclamation under A.356 on
“immorality” is not a valid ground.
25. In Re Keshav
Singh, AIR
1965 SC 745

9. 26. Raja Ram
Pal v.
Hon’ble
Speaker, Lok
Sabha
(2007) 3
SCC 184
Art.105(3) The Constitutional validity
of the expulsion of certain
MPs by the Parliament was
in issue.
The court held that there is no
power of expulsion in the
Parliament, either inherent or
traceable to Art. 105(3). Expulsion
by the house will be possible only
if Art. 102 or Art. 101 are suitably
amended or if a law is made under
Art. 102 (1) (e) enabling the house
to expel a member found
unworthy or unfit of continuing as
member.
Topic -5 Legislative
Power of the Executive
(Ordinances)
27. D.C
Wadhwa v.
State of
Bihar, AIR
1987 SC 579
Art.123/2
13
This case is example of Abuse
of ordinance power. 256
ordinances promulgated in
the state, and all of these kept
alive by re promulgation
without being brought before
the legislature, between
1976-81.
The court called it a ‘subversion of
democratic process’ and ‘colorable
exercise of powers’ and held that
this amounted to a fraud to the
constitution. The executive cannot
usurp the function assigned to the
legislature under the constitution.
28. A.K. Roy v.
UOI, AIR
1982 SC 710
“National
Security Act
(NSA)”
Art.123/2
13
The SC upheld the
constitutional validity of the
NSA and held that it is not
violative of Art. 14.
An ordinance has been held to be
a law under A. 21 of the
Constitution. As the legislature the
President can also repeal or
amend an existing legislation.
An ordinance is like a
Parliamentary law. However it
held that ordinance would be
subject to the test of vagueness,
arbitrariness, reasonableness, and
public interest.
The court held that right of legal
representation before the board is
not permissible.

10. Topic-6 Union and
State Judiciary
29. Rupa Ashok
Hurra v.
Ashok Hurra
(2002) 4
SCC 388 :
AIR 2002 SC
1771
A.137 &
A.32
Although a writ petition under
A.32 against a final judgment
/order of the S.C after disposal of
review petition under A.137 is not
maintainable yet the Court can, in
rarest of rare cases, reconsider its
final judgment to prevent abuse of
process of the court to cure a
gross miscarriage of justice.
30. Zakarius
Lakra v. UOI
(2005) 3
SCC 161
A.32 A writ petition was filed
before the SC for quashing the
death sentence, imposed on
petitioner’s son by the trial
court and confirmed by the
high court and in appeal by
the SC. A School certificate
was produced as additional
evidence in support of the
ground that the convict was
juvenile at the time of
commission of the offence. In
review petition earlier filed by
the appellant, this ground was
stated to have been noticed
while dismissing the petition.
It was held that the writ petition
under A.32 was not maintainable.
The appropriate remedy is only to
file a curative petition.
31. S.P.Gupta v.
President of
India, AIR
1982 SC 149
“Judges
Transfer
Case”
A.32 &
A.226,A.1
24(2),A.21
7(1),A.222
(1)
Independence of Judiciary;
Public interest litigation, Locus
standi, privilege under Article
74(2).
It led the foundation of Public
interest Litigation(PIL).
No primacy needs to be given to
the opinion of the Chief Justice of
India; It is the executive which has
primacy.
The said
decision was
very much
criticized.
32. In Re Special
reference
No.1 of
1998
(Judges
Appointmen
t Case), AIR
A.32 &
A.226,A.1
24(2),A.21
7(1),A.222
(1)
The SC pronounced its advisory
opinion in this case, in which it
provided some more safeguards
regarding appointment and
transfer of Judges viz.
“Consultation of Plularity of
judges”.

11. 1999 SC 1 The CJI had to consult four senior
most judges of the SC and if two
of the four disagreed on some
name it could not be
recommended.
33. National
Judicial
Appointmen
t
Commission
A.124(2)&
A.217(1)
The Commission (NJAC) is
established by 99th
Amendment.
It would consist of
CJI+
2 senior most judges of SC next to
CJI
Union law Minister + 2 eminent
persons nominated by a
committee consist of Prime
Minister, CJI and Leader of
Opposition.
34. L. Chandra
Kumar v.
UOI, AIR
1997 SC
1125
A.323-A &
A.323-B
Whether ouster of power of
judicial review to the total
exclusion of the High Court’s
under A.226 of the
Constitution Permissible?
A.323A, clause 2(d) and Clause
3(d) of A.323B, to the extent they
exclude the jurisdiction of the high
court’s and SC under A.226/227
and 32 of the Constitution, are
unconstitutional.
35. Asif
Hemeed v.
state of
J&K., AIR
1989 SC
1899
A.32/226 Mandamus cannot be issued to
the legislature to enact a
particular legislature.
36. Rudal Shah
v. State of
Bihar,AIR
1983 SC
1086
A.32 In a writ petition for Habeas
Corpus the court awarded
damages to the petitioner
against the state for breach of
his right of personal liberty
under A.21 as he was kept in
jail for 14 years even after his
acquittal by a criminal court.
The court felt that not awarding
damages in the instant case would
“be doing merely lip service to the
Fundamental Rights to liberty
which the state government has
so grossly violated”.
37. M.C. Mehta
v. UOI, AIR
1987 SC
1086
A.32 The Apex court widened the
scope of PIL.
It held that a poor can move the
court by writing a letter (even
without an affidavit) to any
judge(instead of the entire
court).The Court has power to
grant relief, in form of
compensation, where violation of
fundamental right is “gross and
patent” and “affects persons on a
large scale”. The Court can appoint

12. commission or any device for the
enforcement of Fundamental
rights under A.32.
38. Bandhua
Mukti
Morcha v.
UOI, AIR
1984 Sc 802
A.32 An organization informed the
SC through the letter about
the inhuman and intolerable
conditions of bonded labours
working in stone quarries in
Faridabad.
The court treated the letter as a
writ petition and appointed a
commission to make an enquiry.
The Court explained the nature
and purpose of PIL.
Under A.32 only requirement to
approach the court is through
‘Appropriate Proceedings’ and this
requirement has to be judged in
the light of the purpose for which
proceeding is to be taken, namely
enforcement of the Fundamental
Rights.
39. Bhim Singh
v. State of J.
& K., AIR
1986 SC 494
A.32 The Petitioner(an MLA) was
arrested and detained in
police custody and
deliberately prevented for
attending session of legislative
assembly.
The conduct of the magistrate
was criticized who passed an
order remanding the accused
to police custody without the
accused having been
produced before him
personally.
The SC awarded compensation to
the petitioner for his illegal
detention in police custody which
was held to constitute violation of
his rights under Art.21 and Art.22
(2).

13. Topic 7 – Distribution of Legislative Powers
Case
No
Name
Articles
Involved
Facts Issue Decision
40 State of Bihar v.
Charushila Dasi
AIR 1959 SC
1002
[Doctrine of
Territorial Nexus]
No law made by
Parliament shall
be deemed to be
invalid on the
ground that it
would have
extra-territorial
operation’.
Article 245
(Extent of
law made by
Parliament
and by the
Legislature
States)
Article 226
(Power of
High Court to
issue certain
writs)
Section 59 of
Hindu
Religious
Trusts Act,
1950
Smt. Charushila Das
held that the trust in
question is a private trust
created for the worship
of a family idol in which
the public are not
interested therefore
Bihar Hindu Religious
Trusts Act, 1950 do not
apply to it.
She made an application
to the High Court under
Article 226 of the
Constitution in which
asked for a writ or order
to be issued quashing the
proceedings taken
against her by Bihar
State Board of Religious
Trusts.
Does the State
Legislature have power
to legislate with respect
to a charitable and
religious trust situated
within its territory,
when a small or large
part of the property is
situated in another
State?
The Court held that a State
legislature has power to
legislate with respect to a
charitable and religious
trust situated within its
territory, even though any
part of trust proper, small
or large may be situated in
another State.
The petition of Smt.
Charushila Dasi stood
dismissed with costs.
41 State of Bombay
v. R. M. D. C
AIR 1957 SC 699
[Doctrine of
Territorial Nexus]
No law made by
Parliament shall
be deemed to be
invalid on the
ground that it
would have
extra-territorial
operation’.
Article 245
(Extent of
law made by
Parliament
and by the
Legislature
States)
State levied a tax on
lotteries & prize
competitions in State.
The tax was extended to
newspaper printed &
published in Banglore,
but had wide circulation
in Bombay. The prize
entries were received
from Bombay through
agents & depots
established in State.
Does State act in
Extra-terrotorial
jurisdiction and so
impugned Act ultra
vires the competency
of State?
The Court held that a
sufficient territorial nexus
exist for the State to tax
the newspapers.

14. Case
No
Name
Articles
Involved
Facts Issue Decision
42 Tata Iron & Steel
Co. Ltd. v. State of
Bihar
AIR 1958 SC
452
[Doctrine of
Territorial Nexus]
No law made by
Parliament shall
be deemed to be
invalid on the
ground that it
would have
extra-territorial
operation’.
Article 245
(Extent of
law made by
Parliament
and by the
Legislature
States)
In this case, the appellant
company had its
registered office in
Bombay, factory &
works in Bihar & its head
sales office in West
Bengal. The State under
Bihar Sales Tax Act,
1947, imposed a sales tax
on
(i) Goods which are
actually in Bihar at the
time of sale &
(ii) Goods which are
produced &
manufactured in Bihar.
Does theory of nexus
applies to tax statue as
the goods are sold,
delivered & consumed
outside the State?
The fact that the goods
being in Bihar at time of
sale or
produced/manufactured in
Bihar doesn't constitute
sale but were used for
locating situs of sale in
Bihar State. These
ingredients only furnishes
the connection between
taxing State & Sale.
Nexus theory doesn't
impose a tax, it only
indicates circumstances in
which a tax imposed by
legislature may be
enforced in particular
case. The court thus
upheld the levy of tax.
43 G.V.K. Industries
v. Income Tax
Officer
(2011) 4 SCC 36
[Doctrine of
Territorial Nexus]
No law made by
Parliament shall
be deemed to be
invalid on the
ground that it
would have
extra-territorial
operation’.
Article 245
(Extent of
law made by
Parliament
and by the
Legislature
States)
Article 260
(Jurisdiction
of the Union
in relation to
territories
outside India)
Appellant had
challanged the order of
Respondent that
Appellanr was liable to
withhold a certain
portion of monies being
paid to foregin company
& also challanged the
vires of sec 9(1)(vii)(b)
of Income Tax Act 1961
for want of legislative
competence & violation
of Article 14 of
Constitution.
(i) Is Parliament
constitutionally
restricted from
enacting legislation
w.r.t extra-territorial
aspects or causes that
do not have nexus with
India or its
inhabitants?
(ii) Does Parliament
have the powers to
legislate "for" any
territory, other than the
territory of India or any
part of it?
The court held 1st issue in
affirmation & 2nd in
negative.

15. Case
No
Name
Articles
Involved
Facts Issue Decision
44 In Re C P & Berar
Sales of Motor
Spirit &
Lubricants
Taxation Act
AIR 1939 FC 1
[Doctrine of
Harmonious
Construction]
Overlapping/
conflicting entries
in the three lists
must be
reconciled to
bring “harmony
between them”
Sec 3(1) of
the Central
Provinces
and Berar
Sales of
Motor Spirits
and
Lubricants
Taxation Act,
1938
The Union Government
contended that an excise
duty may be imposed on
home produced goods 'at
any stage' from
production to the
consumption. The
provincial legislature
could not levy sales tax
on sales of motor spirits
as 'sale' is a stage
between production and
consumption.
The provincial
Government contended
that 'excise duty' was a
tax on production or
manufacturing of goods
only and that it could not
be levied at a later stage.
Whether a tax imposed
by a provincial
legislature on the sale
of oil was bad as it was
in essence of excise
duty?
The Central Legislature
will have the power to
impose duties of excisable
articles before they
become part of the general
stock of the Province i.e.
at the stage of
manufacture or
production and the
Provincial Legislature an
exclusive power to
impose a tax on sales
thereafter.
The Court reconciled the
federal power to impose
'excise duty' and the
States' power to impose
'sales tax'.
45 Gujarat
University v.
Krishna
Ranganath
Mudholkar
AIR
1963 SC 703
[Doctrine of
Harmonious
Construction]
Overlapping/
conflicting entries
in the three lists
must be
reconciled to
bring “harmony
between them”
Item 11 of
List II or
State List in
conflict with
Item 66 of
List I or
Union List
'coordination
and
determination
of standards
in institutions
of higher
education.'
Shrikant, a student of St.
Xavier college,
University of Gujarat
was denied permission to
take admission to classes
for the Intermediate Arts
examination of
University (English
medium) to Shrikant
stating that in view of the
provision of Gujarat
University Act, 1961 he
could not attend classes
in which instructions
were imparted through
medium of English.
Does a state have
competence under the
State List to prescribe
any particular medium
of instruction in respect
to higher education?
The Court held that the
power to legislate with
respect to medium of
education is a necessary
incidence of coordination
and determination of
standards, the State law
was invalid.

16. Case
No
Name
Articles
Involved
Facts Issue Decision
46 Prafulla Kumar v.
Bank of
Commerce, Kulna
AIR 1947 PC 60
[Doctrine of Pith
and Substance]
If law dealing in
one list touches
another, true
object & scope &
its effects is to be
ascertained.
Sec 100, 107
of GOI Act;
Entry 28, List
I;
Entry 21, List
II
of GOI Act
Validity of Bengal
Money Lenders Act
1940, which limits
amount & rate of interest
recoverable by money
lender on any loan was
challenged on the ground
that it was ultra vires the
Bengal legislature in so
far as it relates to
„Promissory Notes‟, a
Central subject.
Does the impugned act
deals with central
matter & is ultra vires
the legislative power
of state?
The pith & substance of
impugned Act being
money-lending, a State
subject, and it was valid
even though it trenched
incidentally on
„Promissory Notes‟, a
Central subject.
47 State of Karnataka
v. M/s. Drive-in
Enterprises
AIR 2001 SC
1328
[Doctrine of Pith
and Substance]
If law dealing in
one list touches
another, true
object & scope &
its effects is to be
ascertained.
Article 246
(Subject-matt
er of laws
made by
Parliament
and by the
Legislatures
of the State)
Entry 62, List
II
The levy of tax in respect
of “drive-in-cinema” was
in issue. The state levies
entertainment tax on
person being entertained
as well as on admission
of car inside the theatre.
Whether state is
competent to enact law
under entry 62 to levy
entertainment tax on
entry of car/motor
vehicle inside such
theatre?
The Court held that in pith
& substance, the levy is on
the person who is
entertained & it is wholly
immaterial in what name
& form it is imposed. The
word „entertainment is
wide enough to
comprehend in it the
luxury or comfort with
which a person entertains
himself.

17. Case
No
Name
Articles
Involved
Facts Issue Decision
48 State of Rajasthan
v. G. Chawla
AIR 1959 SC 544
[Doctrine of Pith
and Substance]
If law dealing in
one list touches
another, true
object & scope &
its effects is to be
ascertained.
Article 246
(Subject-matt
er of laws
made by
Parliament
and by the
Legislatures
of the State)
Article 132
(Appellate
jurisdiction
of SC in
appeals from
High Courts
in certain
cases)
Entry 6, List
II; Entry 31,
List I
Validity of Ajmer (Sound
Amplifiers Control) Act
1952, restricting the use
of sound amplifiers was
challenged on the ground
that it overlaps the
subject matter in Union
List.
Does the impugned act
deals with central
matter & is ultra vires
the legislative power
of state?
The end & purpose of the
legislation furnishes the
key to connect it with state
list. So, held to be intra
vires the competency of
state legislation.
49 K.C. Gajapati
Narayan Deo v.
State of Orissa
AIR 1953 SC 375
[Colourable
exercise of
Legislative
Power]
If constitutional
transgressing
legislation is
made to appear as
if it is quite
constitutional,
then it is fraud on
constitution.
Article 246
(Subject-matt
er of laws
made by
Parliament
and by the
Legislatures
of the State)
Entry 46, List
II
Validity of the Orissa
Agricultural Income Tax
(Amendment) Act, 1950
was challenged on the
ground that it is a
colourable piece of
legislation, the real
object of which is to
reduce the net income of
intermediaries, so that
compensation paid under
Orissa Estate Abolition
Act 1952 might be kept
down to a low figure.
Whether the impugned
act was introduced
under the guise of a
taxation statue with a
view to accomplish an
ulterior purpose,
namely, to inflate the
deductions for the
purpose of valuing an
estate so that the
compensation payable
w.r.t it might be as
small as possible.
The court held that the
state had undoubted
competency to legislate
the impugned Act in Entry
46 of List II. Both in form
& substance the Act was
agricultural income tax
legislation & motive of
state regarding reduction
in compensation is not
material as far as
competency of statue is
concerned & held not to
be colourable statue.

18. Case
No
Name
Articles
Involved
Facts Issue Decision
50 Union of India v.
H. S. Dhillon
AIR 1972 SC
1061
[Residuary Power
of Legislation]
Article 248
(Residuary
powers of
legislation)
Article 246
(Subject-matt
er of laws
made by
Parliament
and by the
Legislatures
of the State)
Entry 86, List
I; Entry 49,
List II; Entry
97, List I
Parliament amended the
Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 by
Finance Act, 1969, to
include the capital value
of agricultural land for
the purpose of
computing net wealth
which was challenged in
the court.
(i) Whether scope &
extent of Article 248
should be identified
with Entry 97;
(ii) Whether the
subject matter of Entry
97, by virtue of words
'any other matter not
enumerated in List II &
List III', is inclusive of
subject matters of
entries 1-96.
The court held that:
(i) Parliament is
empowered to make law
w.r.t matter in Entry 97, by
virtue of Article 246(1) &
not by Article 248. So,
Entry 97 of List I is
distinct from Article 248.
(ii) The words 'any other
matter' in Entry 97 really
refer to matters contained
in each entries 1-96 &
Article 248 includes those
matters which are not
enumerated in any of 3
lists.
Parliament can enact in a
single statue, the matters
which call for exercise of
two or more entries. Thus,
impugned act is valid.
51 Hoechst
Pharmaceuticals
Ltd. v. State of
Bihar
AIR 1983 SC
1019
[Doctrine of
Repugnancy]
Union Law must
prevail over State
Law in case of
latter being
repugnant to or to
any provisions of
former.
Article 254
(Inconsistenc
y between
laws made by
Parliament &
laws made by
legislatures
of state)
The conflict arises
between Union Law
(Essential Commodities
Act) & State Act (Bihar
Finance Act). While
former Act confers a
right on manufactures or
producers to pass on
liability of sales tax on
consumers, the latter Act
prohibits such passing of
surcharge.
Whether there is a
repugnancy between
Union Law & State
Law or not?
The court held that the
two Acts (one made under
List II & the other under
List III) operate on two
separate & distinct fields
& both are capable of
being obeyed. There is no
question of any clash
between the two laws &
the question of
repugnancy doesn‟t come
into play.

19. Case
No
Name
Articles
Involved
Facts Issue Decision
52 Zaverbhai v. State
of Bombay
AIR 1954 SC 752
[Doctrine of
Repugnancy]
Union Law must
prevail over State
Law in case of
latter being
repugnant to or to
any provisions of
former.
Article 254
(Inconsistenc
y between
laws made by
Parliament &
laws made by
legislatures
of state)
Parliament enacted an
Essential Supplies Act
which provides
penalties. Later Bombay
legislature passed an act
enhancing the penalties.
Subsequent to Bombay
Act, amendments were
made in Central Act by
Parliament with changes
in Punishment.
Which Act needs to be
followed in Bombay?
The court held that as both
occupied same field, the
Bombay Act was
impliedly repealed by
Parliament Act, because
of repugnancy.
Topic-8 Freedom of
Trade, Commerce and
Intercourse
53 Automobile
Transport
(Rajasthan)Ltd. V.
State of
Rajasthan, AIR
1962 SC 1406
“Compensatory
taxes”
(Regional
interests must not
altogether be
ignored)
A.301 The validity of the tax
levied under the
Rajasthan Motor
Vehicles Taxation Act,
1951 was challenged.
The court held that the
tax was not hit by Art.
301 as it were a
compensatory tax having
been levied for the use of
the roads provided for
and maintained by the
state.

20. Case
No
Name
Articles
Involved
Facts Issue Decision
54 Jindal Stainless
Ltd. V. State of
Haryana, AIR
2006 SC 2550
[Concept of
“compensatory
tax” vis-à-vis
Article 301.]
A.301 Whether a
(compensatory) tax
imposed on traders
having no direct nexus
with trading facilities
but used for purposes
the benefit whereof to
the trader was only
indirect or incidental,
covered and therefore
stood protected from
being hit by Art. 301.
Doctrine of “direct and
immediate effect’ of the
impugned law on trade
and commerce under
A.301 as propounded in
Atiabari tea Co. Ltd. V.
State of Assam and the
working test enunciated
in Automobile
Transport(Rajasthan)Ltd.v
. State of Rajasthan for
deciding whether a tax is
compensatory or not will
continue to apply.
Taxing laws are not
excluded from the
operation of Art. 301.
55 G.K. Krishnan v.
State of Tamil
Nadu (1975) 1
SCC 375
A.301 The writ petitions
challenged the validity
of the notification by
the Govt. of Tamil Nadu
enhancing of motor
vehicles tax on
omnibuses from Rs. 30
per seat per quarter to
Rs. 100 per seat per
quarter.
Whether the tax in
question is a
restriction on the
freedom of trade,
commerce and
intercourse
guaranteed by Article
301 of the
constitution?
Laws which are merely
regulatory (incidental or
indirect restrictions) or
which impose purely
compensatory taxes are
outside the scope of
Art.301.
The word “free” in
Art.301 does not mean
freedom from regulation.
Thus, such measures as
traffic regulation,
licensing of vehicles,
charging for the
maintenance of the roads
etc. facilitate the free
movement of trade or
commerce.
56 Shree Mahavir Oil
Mills v. State of
J.& K. (1996) 11
SCC 39
Article 301
and
Art.304(a)
The Govt. of J&K issued
notification under S.5 of
the J&K General Sales
Tax Act, 1962 granting
exemption to local
manufacturers/producer
s of edible oil.
Whether such
exemption has
brought about
discrimination by
taxation prohibited by
Article 304(a) of the
Constitution.
The exemption granted
by Notification to local
manufactures/producers
of edible oil is violative of
the provisions contained
in Article 301 and
Art.304(a)

21. Case
No
Name
Articles
Involved
Facts Issue Decision
57 Atiabari Tea Co. v.
State of Assam,
AIR 1961 SC 232
[Doctrine of
“direct and
immediate
effect”]
A.301 The Petitioners were
carrying on the business
of growing tea and
exporting it to Calcutta
via Assam, thus liable to
the tax under the
aforesaid Act while
passing the Assam State.
Validity of the Assam
Taxation (on grounds
carried by road or
inland waterways) Act,
1954 was challenged
on the ground that it
violated Art.301.
Held that the tax imposed
on the goods directly
restricted their transport
or movement and
therefore offended
against Art. 301.
Topic- 9 Emergency
Provisions
58 State of
Rajasthan v.
Union of India,
AIR 1977 SC 1361
A.356,
A.74(2)
States filed suits
challenging the validity
of the directions issued
by the Home Ministers
to Chief Ministers to
dissolve their
Assemblies and seek a
fresh mandate. So
President‘s Rule was
imposed on the ground
that the assemblies in
these States no longer
represents the wishes of
electorate.
Whether imposition of
President Rule under
Article 356 in States is
open for Judicial
Review?
Sufficiency of grounds of
executive action under
A.356(1) is non-justiciable
(Not open for judicial
review ). Article 74(2)
bars the courts to inquire
into advice tendered by
the ministers to the
President.
59 S.R.Bommai v.
Union of India,
AIR 1994 SC 1918
(Secularism is a
basic feature of
the Constitution)
A.356,
A.74(2)
States of Karnataka,
Megalaya, Nagaland,
Rajasthan, M.P, and H.P.
Challenged the
imposition of President’s
Rule under A.356.
President’s Rule in
States under A.356-
grounds and scope of
judicial review
Proclamation under
A.356 is amenable to
judicial review.
Though the subjective
satisfaction of the
President cannot be
reviewed by the court but
material on which
satisfaction is based is
open to judicial review on
grounds of illegality,
malafide,extraneous
considerations,
abuse of power.

22. Case
No
Name
Articles
Involved
Facts Issue Decision
60 Rameshwar
Prasad v. Union
of India, AIR 2006
SC 980
(“Bihar Assembly
Dissolution
Case”)
A.356 In a unique case of its
kind even before the
first meeting of the
legislative assembly, its
dissolution had been
ordered on the ground
that attempts were
being made to cobble a
majority by illegal
means and lay claim to
form the government in
state and if attempts
continued, it would
amount to tampering
with constitutional
provisions.
The Constitutional
validity of Notification
dated 23 May, 2005
ordering dissolution of
Legislative Assembly
of the state of Bihar
was in issue.
The President
proclamation dissolving
state assembly in Bihar
under A.356 were
unconstitutional and
based on extraneous and
irrelevant grounds.
Proclamation under
A.356 on “immorality”
is not a valid ground.