Mumbai University Solved Question Papers
Indian Constitutional Law New Challenges
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
LLM · Foundation Course
Jul 2026 - ATKT Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
LLM Foundation Course Indian Constitutional Law New Challenges Jul 2026 - 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 Jul 2026 - 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 Jul 2026 - ATKT examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the Jul 2026 - 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, cite relevant case laws wherever required
any four of seven · 100 Marks
1)Critically examine the inclusion of instrumentalities and agencies within the meaning of "State" under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. What criteria have courts used to determine whether a body qualifies as a State?[25]
Answer
For full marks, cover: why the definition of "State" matters; the text of Article 12; the move from a narrow to a functional test, case by case (Rajasthan Electricity Board, Sukhdev Singh, R.D. Shetty, Ajay Hasia, Pradeep Kumar Biswas, Zee Telefilms); the six Ajay Hasia tests and the "deep and pervasive control" test that replaced them; the recent extension of fundamental rights against private persons in Kaushal Kishor; the role of Article 226; a critical evaluation; and a conclusion.
1. Why the meaning of "State" matters
Most fundamental rights in Part III protect the individual against the State. A citizen can enforce them under Article 32 only against a body that is "the State". If a powerful body is not the State, its acts cannot be challenged for breach of equality under Article 14 or of equal opportunity under Article 16. So the definition of "State" decides how far the Constitution's protection reaches.
This question became urgent as the government began to act through corporations, companies and societies instead of departments. Banks, airlines, oil companies, electricity boards and research bodies were set up under statutes or as companies. If these were outside Article 12, the government could escape the Constitution simply by changing the form of its agencies.
2. The text
Article 12 says that in Part III, unless the context otherwise requires, "the State" includes the Government and Parliament of India, the Government and the Legislature of each State, and "all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India".
The words "other authorities" are the key. The definition is inclusive, and the courts have read "other authorities" to include instrumentalities and agencies of the government.
3. From a narrow to a functional test
The narrow start. In University of Madras v. Shantha Bai, decided by the Madras High Court in 1954, "other authorities" was read ejusdem generis, as meaning only bodies like the government and local authorities that exercise governmental functions. This would have kept most corporations outside.
Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur v. Mohan Lal AIR 1967 SC 1857. The Board, a statutory body, was challenged for discriminating among its employees. The Supreme Court rejected the ejusdem generis reading. It held that "other authorities" includes every authority created by the Constitution or by statute on which powers are conferred by law, especially the power to make binding rules or issue directions. The Board was therefore "State".
Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi AIR 1975 SC 1331. The Oil and Natural Gas Commission, the Life Insurance Corporation and the Industrial Finance Corporation were statutory corporations. Employees challenged their dismissals. The Court held them to be "State", because they were created by statute, had power to make regulations with the force of law, and were under deep governmental control. Mathew J, concurring, said that a public corporation is the agency through which the government carries on its business, and should be treated as the State.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India AIR 1979 SC 1628. The Airport Authority invited tenders for a restaurant and then accepted a bid from a person who did not meet the stated condition. A rival bidder challenged this. Bhagwati J held that the Authority was an instrumentality or agency of the government, and so bound by Article 14. He gave indicators: whether the government holds the share capital, gives financial help, exercises deep and pervasive control, and whether the functions are public and closely related to government.
4. The six tests in Ajay Hasia
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi AIR 1981 SC 487. The Regional Engineering College, Srinagar was a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Students challenged its admission process, which gave heavy weight to an oral interview. The question was whether a registered society could be "State". A Constitution Bench held that it was, because the test is not how a body is created but why. If it is an instrumentality or agency of the government, it is "State" even if it is a company or a society.
The Court listed six tests:
- whether the entire share capital is held by the government;
- whether the government's financial assistance meets almost all the body's expenditure;
- whether the body enjoys a monopoly status conferred or protected by the State;
- whether there is deep and pervasive State control;
- whether the functions are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions; and
- whether a government department has been transferred to the corporation.
The tests were indicators, not a checklist. The admission process itself was held arbitrary because the interview carried too much weight.
5. The restatement in Pradeep Kumar Biswas
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) 5 SCC 111. The question was whether the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), a society, was "State". An earlier decision, Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India (1975), had said no. A seven judge bench overruled Sabhajit Tewary and held CSIR to be "State". It restated the law: the question in each case is whether, in the light of 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. Mere regulatory control, which applies to all similar bodies, is not enough.
6. The limits: Zee Telefilms
Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649. Zee's bid for cricket telecast rights was rejected by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), a private society. Zee argued that the BCCI was "State" because it selects the national team and controls cricket in India. By 3:2, the Constitution Bench held that the BCCI is not "State" under Article 12. It is not created by statute, gets no government funding, and is not under deep and pervasive government control. Its public functions in organising cricket do not make it the State.
But the Court added that a body performing public functions can be reached by a writ under Article 226, which is not confined to "the State". So the BCCI is answerable to the High Courts in public law, though not under Article 32.
7. Beyond Article 12: rights against private persons
Some fundamental rights apply to private persons by their own terms. Article 15(2) bars restrictions, on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, on access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment, and on the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public. Article 17 abolishes untouchability, Article 23 forbids forced labour and Article 24 forbids child labour in hazardous work.
Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) 4 SCC 1. A Constitution Bench held, by majority, that a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 can be enforced even against persons other than the State or its instrumentalities. This marks a shift: horizontal application of rights reduces the importance of the Article 12 test in some areas, though the Article 12 question still decides when Article 32 and the full range of public law duties apply.
8. A critical examination
| Test or case | Strength | Weakness |
|---|---|---|
| Statutory authority (Mohan Lal) | Clear and simple | Misses companies and societies |
| Six tests (Ajay Hasia) | Looks at substance, not form | Indicators can point both ways |
| Deep and pervasive control (Pradeep Kumar Biswas) | Focused, prevents over-extension | Leaves out powerful private bodies |
| Public functions (Zee Telefilms, Article 226) | Reaches bodies like the BCCI | Only through writs, not as "State" |
The argument for a wide test. The government should not escape the Constitution by acting through companies. As privatisation grows, many public services are run by bodies with public power but private form.
The argument for a narrow test. If every body with some public function were "State", private enterprise and autonomous institutions would be burdened with constitutional duties designed for government. Pradeep Kumar Biswas tried to keep the test focused for this reason.
The present balance. The courts use Article 12 for bodies the government dominates, Article 226 for other bodies performing public functions, and, after Kaushal Kishor, horizontal rights for some private wrongs. Together these leave few gaps.
9. Is the judiciary "State"?
Article 12 does not name the judiciary. In Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1967 SC 1, a High Court judge had forbidden publication of a witness's evidence during a trial. Journalists challenged the order under Article 32 as a breach of Article 19(1)(a). A nine judge bench held that a judicial order made in the course of deciding a case does not violate fundamental rights in a way that can be challenged by a writ to the Supreme Court; the remedy is an appeal or revision. The usual view since then is that courts acting judicially are not "State" for this purpose, though their administrative actions, such as appointing staff, are subject to Part III. This shows that Article 12 turns on the function being exercised, not only on the body exercising it.
Conclusion. Article 12's "other authorities" has been read from the narrow statutory test of Rajasthan Electricity Board to the functional "instrumentality or agency" test of R.D. Shetty and Ajay Hasia, and then refined in Pradeep Kumar Biswas to the test of financial, functional and administrative domination by the government. Zee Telefilms drew the limit, leaving bodies such as the BCCI outside Article 12 but within the writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The approach is sound in principle because it looks at substance over form, but it has to keep adapting to privatisation. With Article 226 and the horizontal reach recognised in Kaushal Kishor, the Constitution's protection now follows public power wherever it is exercised.
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.