Mumbai University Solved Question Papers
Indian Constitutional Law New Challenges
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
LLM · Foundation Course
2015 Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
LLM Foundation Course Indian Constitutional Law New Challenges 2015 Question Paper with Solutions
MU LLM student group
Free to join
First published on munotes.in on 12 August 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 2015 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 2015 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 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 · 15 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
Q.P. Code 12182. Attempt any four questions, all questions carry equal marks
any four of eight · 100 Marks
1.Discuss with decided cases the need to widen the nature and scope of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.[25]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the text and why it is inclusive; why widening was needed, which is the growth of the State into commerce through corporate forms; the decided cases in order with what each added; where the widening stopped; and the position after liberalisation, which is the modern case for going further.
The text. In Part III, unless the context otherwise requires, "the State" includes the Government and Parliament of India, the Government and the Legislature of each of the States, all local authorities, and other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. The word "includes" is what made the entire development possible: the definition is a floor, not a ceiling.
Why widening was needed. The framers wrote Article 12 for a State that governed. Within a decade the State was the country's largest industrialist, insurer, banker, carrier and employer, and it did that business through statutory corporations, government companies and registered societies rather than departments. Had those bodies been outside Article 12, the State could have taken any function beyond the reach of Part III by choosing a corporate vehicle for it, and the guarantees of Articles 14 and 16 would have ended at the gate of every public sector undertaking.
The decided cases, each with its contribution.
University of Madras v. Shantha Bai (AIR 1954 Mad 67) applied ejusdem generis and confined "other authorities" to bodies exercising sovereign or governmental functions. Doubted in Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1962 SC 1621).
Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (AIR 1967 SC 1857) rejected that reading: "other authorities" includes every constitutional or statutory authority on which powers are conferred by law, and it is immaterial that the body also carries on trade; ejusdem generis has no application because the preceding words share no genus.
Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram (1975) 1 SCC 421 held ONGC, LIC and the Industrial Finance Corporation to be State, and Mathew J. supplied the theory that governs the field: a public corporation is an agency or instrumentality of the State, and the State cannot escape its constitutional obligations by the device of creating a corporation.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489 turned that into tests: entire share capital held by government; financial assistance meeting almost all expenditure; a State-conferred or protected monopoly; deep and pervasive State control; functions of public importance closely related to governmental functions; and a department transferred to the body.
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 1 SCC 722 made the tests independent of legal form: a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 running an engineering college was State, because the enquiry is not how the juristic person is born but why it has been brought into existence.
Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 449 applied them to a government company and P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 141 to the Indian Council of Agricultural Research.
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) 5 SCC 111, a bench of seven, overruled Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India (1975) 1 SCC 485 and settled the test: the body must be financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government, that control must be particular to the body and pervasive, and merely regulatory control will not do.
Where the widening stopped. Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649: the Board of Control for Cricket in India is not State, despite a monopoly in fact and the selection of the national team, because none of the Pradeep Kumar Biswas criteria is satisfied; but a writ under Article 226 lies against it for the discharge of a public duty. Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas (2003) 10 SCC 733: a private bank is not State, because even the Reserve Bank's detailed regulation is regulation and not control.
The modern case for widening, which is what "need" means in 2026. The reach of Article 12 is a function of how much the State owns, and since the New Industrial Policy of 24 July 1991 it has owned steadily less. BALCO Employees' Union v. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333 upheld the sale of the Union's majority stake in a public sector undertaking, treated disinvestment as economic policy not ordinarily justiciable, and held that the employees had no right to be heard; the consequence, which the Court did not deny, is that Articles 14 and 16 governed them on one day and not the next. Every public private partnership, every outsourced service and every regulated private monopoly reproduces the same gap.
The two answers the courts have in fact developed, rather than stretching Article 12 further. Public function: Andi Mukta Sadguru Trust v. V.R. Rudani (1989) 2 SCC 691 holds that mandamus lies under Article 226 against any body performing a public duty, whatever its constitutional character, with K.K. Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (2015) 4 SCC 670 supplying the limit. Horizontality: Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) 4 SCC 1 held by 4:1 that Articles 19 and 21 are enforceable against non-State actors, joining Articles 15(2), 17, 20(2), 23, 24 and 29(2).
Conclusion. The need to widen Article 12 arose because the State went into business behind corporate forms, and the courts met it in six steps, from ejusdem generis to statutory creation, to instrumentality, to the composite control test of Pradeep Kumar Biswas. That widening is complete, and Zee Telefilms shows why it cannot go further: control is the only principled criterion available, and a definition that catches every powerful private body is no definition at all. The need has not disappeared; it has changed shape. The threat to Part III now is not the State hiding behind a company but the State ceasing to own the enterprise, and no reading of "other authorities" reaches a genuinely private operator. The answer, if the guarantees are to survive privatisation, lies in the public function jurisdiction under Article 226 and in the horizontal reading of Kaushal Kishor, and not in Article 12 itself.
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, as does the syllabus and module one of every subject.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.