KSLU Solved Question Papers
Constitutional Law I
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 3
2015 Dec (70 marks) Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 3 Constitutional Law I 2015 Dec (70 marks) Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2015 Dec (70 marks) examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2015 Dec (70 marks) examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2015 Dec (70 marks) examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 2½ hours · Total marks 70 · 12 questions answered
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1Explain how judiciary has widened the scope of the term 'other authorities' under Article 12 of the constitution.[10]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the text of article 12 and why it matters; the four named categories; why the courts had to widen "other authorities"; the line of cases from Rajasthan Electricity Board to Pradeep Kumar Biswas and Zee Telefilms; the latest trends (article 226, horizontal rights, the judiciary); a conclusion.
Definition of "State" in article 12
Article 12 reads: "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."
Most fundamental rights in Part III are guarantees against the State. A person can enforce them only against a body that is "State". So article 12 decides who must respect fundamental rights. Article 36 applies the same definition to the directive principles in Part IV.
The word "includes" shows the definition is not closed. It names four groups:
- the Government and Parliament of India;
- the Government and the Legislature of each State;
- all local authorities, such as municipalities, panchayats and port trusts; and
- all other authorities within India or under the control of the Government of India.
The first three are clear. Almost every case is about the fourth group, "other authorities".
Why the definition had to be widened
After 1950 India became a welfare State. Government began to run airlines, banks, insurance, power supply, steel plants and research councils. It did this through statutory corporations, government companies and registered societies, rather than through departments.
If only departments were "State", the government could escape Part III simply by changing the form in which it acts. A public sector employee could be dismissed arbitrarily, and article 14 would not help him. The courts therefore looked at the substance of a body, not its legal form.
The judicial trend, case by case
Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857. An employee of the Board was refused promotion while others in the same position were promoted. The Board said it was not "State". The Supreme Court held that "other authorities" includes every authority created by statute and given power to carry out governmental or quasi-governmental functions. It refused to read the words ejusdem generis with the named bodies. Commercial activity did not matter, because the State itself may trade.
Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, AIR 1975 SC 1331. Employees of ONGC, LIC and the Industrial Finance Corporation were removed in breach of their regulations. The Court held that these statutory corporations are "authorities" under article 12. Their regulations have the force of law. Mathew J. added that the real test is whether the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of the State.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628. The Airport Authority accepted a restaurant tender from a party who did not meet its own published eligibility condition. The Court held that the Authority was an instrumentality of the State. Its departure from its own standard was arbitrary and violated article 14.
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, AIR 1981 SC 487. A society running an engineering college held two or three minute interviews carrying a third of the marks. The society said it was only a registered society. The Court held that form is irrelevant. Even a society is "State" if it is an instrumentality of government. It gave six tests:
- government holds the entire share capital;
- government money meets almost all the expenditure;
- the body enjoys a monopoly given or protected by the State;
- there is deep and pervasive State control;
- its functions are public and closely related to governmental functions; and
- a government department was transferred to it.
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, decided on 16 April 2002. A seven-judge Bench held that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research is "State". It said the Ajay Hasia tests are not rigid. The question is whether, on the cumulative facts, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. The control must be particular to the body and pervasive. Merely regulatory control is not enough.
Zee Telefilms Ltd v. Union of India, decided on 2 February 2005. By a majority, a five-judge Bench held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India is not "State". It is not created by statute, gets almost no government money, and faces only regulatory control. But the Court noted that the Board performs public duties, such as selecting the national team. So a remedy may lie under article 226 instead.
The newer trends
- Article 226 is wider than article 12. A High Court can issue a writ to "any person or authority" performing a public duty, even if it is not "State".
- The judiciary. In its administrative and rule-making work the judiciary is "State". But in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1, the Court held that a judicial order made by a court with jurisdiction cannot itself violate a fundamental right.
- Rights against private persons. In Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh, decided on 3 January 2023, a Constitution Bench held that articles 19 and 21 are not generally enforceable against private persons in writ proceedings. Rights of similar content operate against them through the ordinary law.
Conclusion. The definition of "State" in article 12 is inclusive. The courts have widened "other authorities" from statutory bodies to every body that is financially, functionally and administratively controlled by government. This stops the government from escaping fundamental rights by acting through a corporation or society. The present test is the one laid down in Pradeep Kumar Biswas. Bodies outside it may still be reached under article 226 when they perform public duties.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 3 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.