Mumbai University Solved Question Papers
Indian Constitutional Law New Challenges
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
LLM · Foundation Course
Mar 2024 - ATKT Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
LLM Foundation Course Indian Constitutional Law New Challenges Mar 2024 - ATKT Question Paper with Solutions
MU LLM student group
Free to join
First published on munotes.in on 2 November 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 the University of Mumbai. It is not affiliated with the University of Mumbai, 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 the University of Mumbai at the Mar 2024 - ATKT examination.
The answers in this volume state the law as it stands today, not as it stood when the paper was set, and in this subject the difference is large. Five changes alter answers here. Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal, 8 November 2024, overruled Azeez Basha on the minority status of an institution incorporated by statute. State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, 1 August 2024, permitted sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes. The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 replaced the appointment committee directed in Anoop Baranwal. The Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023 came into force on 16 April 2026 and is not yet operative. And the advisory opinion of 20 November 2025 held that no timeline may be set for assent to a Bill. Where a provision has since been replaced, the answer gives the position then and now, and says which is which.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as the University of Mumbai set it at the Mar 2024 - ATKT examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the Mar 2024 - ATKT examination, reproduced as the University of Mumbai set them, in the order it set them. Nothing has been reworded, added or left out. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 7 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.
SECTION I
Attempt any four questions, all questions carry equal marks
any four of seven · 100 Marks
1.Explain fully, the principle of "Federalism" embodied in the constitution of India and relationship of trust and faith between Centre and States.[25]
Answer
For full marks, cover: why the Constitution says "Union of States"; the federal features and the unitary ones; the three distributions, legislative, administrative and financial; the case law culminating in Bommai; and then the trust half, which is Article 263, the GST Council and the Governor, ending with the position after the Supreme Court's advisory opinion of 20 November 2025.
Article 1(1) says India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States, and the choice of "Union" over "Federation" was explained by Dr Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly: the Union is not the result of an agreement between the States, and the States have no right to secede. The federation is created by the Constitution and not by a compact between pre-existing sovereigns.
Federal features. A written and supreme Constitution; a division of legislative power under Article 246 and the Seventh Schedule into three Lists; a rigid amending procedure for federal provisions, since the proviso to Article 368(2) requires ratification by not less than half the State legislatures for any amendment touching the election of the President, the extent of executive or legislative power of the Union or the States, the Seventh Schedule, the representation of States in Parliament, or Article 368 itself; an independent judiciary with the Supreme Court's exclusive original jurisdiction over federal disputes under Article 131; and a bicameral Parliament whose upper House represents the States under Article 80.
Unitary features. Article 3 allows Parliament to redraw any State's boundaries or change its name on the President's recommendation after merely ascertaining the views of the State legislature, which are not binding, and Article 4 says such a law is not an amendment for the purposes of Article 368. Articles 249, 250, 252 and 253 allow Parliament to legislate on State subjects in defined circumstances, including to implement a treaty. Articles 200 and 201 allow a Governor to reserve a Bill and the President to withhold assent. Articles 256, 257 and 365 allow the Union to direct a State and to treat non-compliance as a failure of constitutional machinery. Article 356 allows President's rule. There is a single citizenship, a single integrated judiciary, an All India Services cadre under Article 312, and a common Comptroller and Auditor General and Election Commission. The residuary power is with the Union, under Article 248 and entry 97 of List I.
The three distributions. Legislative, by Article 246 and the Seventh Schedule, with Union supremacy under Article 246(1) and the doctrines of pith and substance, colourable legislation and repugnancy under Article 254, the last resolved in favour of Union law unless a State law reserved for and receiving the President's assent prevails within that State under Article 254(2). Administrative, by Articles 256 to 263, with the Union's power to give directions and the obligation of States to comply. Financial, by Articles 268 to 281, with grants-in-aid under Article 275, the Finance Commission under Article 280, and since the One Hundred and First Amendment, 2016, Article 246A conferring concurrent power over goods and services tax, Article 269A on inter-State supply and Article 279A establishing the GST Council, whose decisions need a three-fourths majority with the Union holding one-third of the weight and all States together two-thirds.
The case law. State of West Bengal v. Union of India (AIR 1963 SC 1241) rejected State sovereignty and held Indian federalism a matter of degree. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) 3 SCC 592 took a strongly centralist view. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1 corrected it: federalism is part of the basic structure, a Proclamation under Article 356 is justiciable, the President's satisfaction must rest on relevant material, the test of a government's majority is the floor of the House and not the Governor's opinion, and dissolution before parliamentary approval is impermissible and can be undone. Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006) 7 SCC 1 described the model as quasi-federal. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018) 8 SCC 501 and (2023) 9 SCC 1 developed collaborative federalism, holding the Lieutenant Governor bound by ministerial advice except on police, public order and land, a position Parliament then altered by statute in 2023. Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2017) 12 SCC 1 re-read Articles 301 to 304 and abandoned the compensatory tax doctrine.
Now the trust and faith half.
The machinery is thin. Article 263 permits the President to establish an Inter-State Council to enquire into and advise upon disputes and to investigate subjects of common interest; the Sarkaria Commission recommended it in 1988 and it was constituted only in 1990, and the Punchhi Commission (2010) recommended that it meet at least three times a year, which it does not. The Zonal Councils under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 are statutory, not constitutional. Article 261 requires full faith and credit to public acts and records. Article 262 takes inter-State water disputes out of the courts, and section 11 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 bars the jurisdiction of all courts, though State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu (2018) 4 SCC 1 held that an appeal under Article 136 against a tribunal award nonetheless lies.
Where trust has broken down is the Governor. Appointed by the President under Article 155 and holding office during pleasure under Article 156, the Governor is a Union nominee exercising discretion under Articles 163 and 200 in States often governed by another party. The two flashpoints are government formation, on which Bommai and Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) 2 SCC 1 supply the law, and delay in assent. On the second, in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, decided 8 April 2025, a two-judge bench held the withholding of assent to ten Bills illegal, prescribed timelines and declared the Bills deemed assented. The President then referred fourteen questions under Article 143(1), and on 20 November 2025 the Supreme Court held in its advisory opinion that no rigid timelines can be judicially prescribed under Articles 200 and 201, that deemed assent is alien to the Constitution, and that these decisions are not ordinarily justiciable, while holding that a Governor may not sit on a Bill indefinitely and that limited judicial review lies for unexplained delay. That is the present law.
The GST Council as the counter-example. Union of India v. Mohit Minerals (2022) 10 SCC 700 held that the recommendations of the GST Council are not binding on the Union and the States, being the product of a collaborative dialogue, and that both legislatures have simultaneous power under Article 246A. Whatever the practical difficulties of the Council, it is the one forum in which the Union and the States decide a major subject together, and it is the model any answer on cooperative federalism should hold up.
Recent tests of trust and faith. Two recent developments show how the relationship works under strain. First, on 11 December 2023, a Constitution Bench in In re Article 370 of the Constitution upheld the Presidential Order of 5 August 2019 that made the whole Constitution applicable to Jammu and Kashmir. It held that Article 370 was a temporary provision and that the State retained no internal sovereignty. It did not finally decide whether Parliament may convert a State into a Union Territory under Article 3, recording instead the Union's assurance that statehood would be restored. The judgment confirms the strength of the Union in the Indian design.
Fiscal federalism is the second test. States collect fewer taxes than they need and depend on the shares and grants recommended by the Finance Commission under Article 280. After the Goods and Services Tax, States also gave up much of their independent power to tax goods and services. Disputes over the share of the divisible pool, over cesses and surcharges that are not shared, and over borrowing limits have brought several States to the Supreme Court under Article 131. The Inter-State Council meets rarely, so many of these disputes go to court instead of being settled by dialogue. Trust and faith between the Union and the States therefore depend as much on fair finance as on the text of the Seventh Schedule.
Planning and cooperation. On 1 January 2015 the Planning Commission was replaced by the NITI Aayog, whose Governing Council includes the Chief Ministers of all States. Unlike the Planning Commission, it does not allocate plan funds; it works as a forum for policy advice and for ranking States on indicators, an approach often called competitive and cooperative federalism. Whether it builds trust depends on whether States see it as a partner or as an extension of the Union.
Conclusion. Indian federalism is federal in structure and unitary in emergency, which is why Bommai preferred to describe it in its own terms rather than measure it against a classical model. The distribution of powers, the Seventh Schedule and the Article 368 proviso are real guarantees, and since Bommai federalism is part of the basic structure and therefore beyond amendment. But the relationship of trust and faith depends almost entirely on institutions the Constitution merely permits, an Inter-State Council that rarely meets, a Finance Commission whose recommendations are not binding, and a Governor who owes his office to the Union. The GST Council shows what a properly constituted joint forum can achieve; the Presidential Reference of November 2025 shows what happens when the parties stop trusting each other and reach instead for the Court. The Constitution secures federalism at the level of power and leaves it to convention at the level of practice, and it is the convention that has been failing.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the solved papers for your group.
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. Choose your group on the next page.
Notes + Solved papers: ₹798 Already bought it? Sign in
Or solved papers only: ₹499
Or notes only: ₹499
The question paper itself stays free, and so does the syllabus.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.