LL.B. (Three Years) Sem 1 Constitutional Law I Oct 2025 Question Paper with Solutions

For full marks, cover: how the Assembly was formed under the Cabinet Mission Plan, its members and first sitting, the issues before it, the Objectives Resolution, the committees and the Drafting Committee, the three readings, adoption and the two commencement dates, Dr Ambedkar's warning, and the criticisms with replies.

Introduction

The Constitution of India was not handed down by the British Parliament. It was made by an Indian body, the Constituent Assembly. A constituent assembly is a body chosen to frame a constitution. Ours sat for 2 years, 11 months and 18 days, over 11 sessions. It adopted the Constitution on 26 November 1949. The Constitution came fully into force on 26 January 1950.

1. Formation of the Constituent Assembly

1. The authority. The Assembly was set up under the Cabinet Mission Plan of 16 May 1946. No Indian statute created it.

Two roles. From 15 August 1947, section 8 of the Indian Independence Act 1947 made the Assembly a fully sovereign body. It also became the Dominion Legislature, the law-making body of the new Dominion. As a legislature, G.V. Mavalankar presided. As a constitution-making body, Dr Rajendra Prasad presided.

2. The issues before the Assembly

The Assembly had to settle some hard questions:

1. Union and States. How much power should the Centre have, and how much the provinces?
2. The princely States. How should more than five hundred States join the Union?
3. Minorities. Should there be separate electorates for religious groups, as under British rule?
4. Rights. Which rights should the courts enforce, and which should only guide the State?
5. Form of government. Should India have a parliamentary system or a presidential one?

Partition changed several answers. The Assembly chose a strong Centre. It chose reserved seats instead of separate electorates. It divided rights into enforceable fundamental rights (Part III) and non-enforceable directive principles (Part IV).

4. The committees and the Drafting Committee

The Assembly did not write the text on the floor. It sent each part of the work to a committee.

The Drafting Committee was appointed on 29 August 1947. It had seven members:

1. Dr B.R. Ambedkar, Chairman

As adopted, the Constitution had 395 articles, 8 schedules and 22 Parts. 284 members signed it on 24 January 1950.

6. Date of commencement

Article 394 sets two dates.

1. 26 November 1949. Some provisions came into force at once. Article 394 names them: articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 60, 324, 366, 367, 379, 380, 388, 391, 392, 393 and article 394 itself. These cover citizenship, elections and the change-over. That machinery had to work before the rest could start.
2. 26 January 1950. The rest of the Constitution came into force on this day. The Constitution calls it the "commencement of this Constitution".

Why 26 January? At its Lahore session in December 1929, the Congress adopted purna swaraj, or complete independence, as its goal. 26 January 1930 was then observed as Independence Day. Commencing the Constitution on 26 January honoured that date.

These warnings explain why the Constitution joins political democracy with social and economic justice.

8. Criticisms of the Assembly, and the replies

1. It was not elected by the people. It was chosen by provincial legislators. Those legislators had been elected on the narrow franchise of the Government of India Act 1935. Reply: no roll of all adult voters existed in 1946. A direct election would have taken years. The Assembly then gave every adult the vote in article 326.
2. One party dominated it. The Congress had a large majority. Reply: the Congress brought in people from outside it, such as Dr Ambedkar, who chaired the Drafting Committee. The debates were real, and the Assembly overruled its committees more than once.
3. It was not socially representative. Lawyers were many, and there were only about fifteen women. Reply: the Assembly still abolished untouchability, reserved seats for the weaker sections, and gave every adult woman the vote at once.
4. It took too long. Reply: it wrote 395 articles for the Union and the States together. It worked through partition, the joining of the princely States and a war in Kashmir. It also disposed of 2,473 amendments.

For full marks, cover: single citizenship and articles 5 to 11; the five modes of acquisition under the Citizenship Act 1955 (birth, descent, registration, naturalisation, incorporation of territory) with the dates for birth and descent; sections 6A and 6B; the three modes of loss (renunciation, termination, deprivation); the Overseas Citizen of India card; and the leading cases.

Introduction

A citizen is a full member of the State. Some fundamental rights belong only to citizens. Articles 15, 16, 19, 29 and 30 are examples. India has single citizenship. A person is a citizen of India alone, not of any State.

The Constitution deals with citizenship in Part II, articles 5 to 11. Articles 5 to 9 only decide who was a citizen on 26 January 1950. Article 11 leaves everything else to Parliament. Parliament then made the Citizenship Act 1955. That Act governs acquisition and loss today.

Part A: Citizenship at the commencement (articles 5 to 9)

India began with jus soli, which means citizenship by place of birth. The amendments of 1986 and 2003 moved it towards jus sanguinis, which means citizenship through the parents. Section 3(2) excludes a child of a foreign diplomat, and a child of an enemy alien born in occupied territory.

An illegal migrant, under section 2(1)(b), is a foreigner who entered without a valid passport. It also covers a foreigner who stayed on after his permitted time ran out.

2. By descent, section 4. This is for a person born outside India.

4. By naturalisation, section 6. This is for a foreigner with no Indian connection. The Third Schedule requires:

1. he gives up his other citizenship;
2. he has lived in India for the twelve months before applying, and eleven of the fourteen years before that;
3. he is of good character;
4. he knows a language in the Eighth Schedule;
5. he intends to live in India.

The Government may waive these for a person of distinguished service to science, art, literature, world peace or human progress.

5. By incorporation of territory, section 7. When a territory becomes part of India, the Central Government names the persons who become citizens. Nobody applies. It was used for Pondicherry, Goa, Daman and Diu, Sikkim in 1975, and the enclaves received from Bangladesh in 2015.

Two special routes.

1. Section 6A, the Assam Accord (1985). Persons of Indian origin who came to Assam from Bangladesh before 1 January 1966 are citizens. Those who came between 1 January 1966 and 25 March 1971 become citizens after detection and registration, and a wait of ten years. A Constitution Bench has upheld section 6A.

1. Renunciation, section 8. The citizenship ends when the declaration is registered. His minor children also lose it. A child may take it back by a declaration within one year of turning eighteen.

2. Termination, section 9. No order or hearing is needed. Acquisition of another citizenship ends Indian citizenship at once. This is how the Act shows that India does not allow dual citizenship. Under section 9(2), the question whether a person acquired another citizenship is decided by the prescribed authority, not by a civil court.

3. Deprivation, section 10. This applies only to a citizen by registration, naturalisation or article 5(c). It never applies to a citizen by birth or descent. The grounds are:

1. Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 554. Facts: foreign missionaries had lived in India for many years on renewed residential permits. They claimed citizenship by domicile and challenged orders asking them to leave. Held: the petitions were dismissed. A person who claims domicile must prove the intention to stay permanently, and renewed permits did not prove it. A foreigner's fundamental right is confined to article 21. It does not include the right to reside and settle under article 19(1)(e), which belongs to citizens. Why it matters: it shows that domicile under article 5 is more than long residence.
2. State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Khudiram Chakma, 1994 AIR 1461. Facts: Chakma families came from East Pakistan to Assam, and moved to Arunachal Pradesh in 1966. They claimed citizenship under section 6A. Held: section 6A needs entry into Assam and ordinary residence in Assam since then. They had lived in Arunachal Pradesh, so the claim failed. Why it matters: each special route is applied strictly on its own terms.

Conclusion. Articles 5 to 9 fixed who was a citizen on 26 January 1950, and article 11 left the rest to Parliament. Under the Citizenship Act 1955, citizenship is acquired by birth, descent, registration, naturalisation and incorporation of territory, with special routes in sections 6A and 6B. It is lost by renunciation, by automatic termination on voluntarily taking another citizenship, and by deprivation, which reaches only acquired citizenship. The law has moved from citizenship by birthplace towards citizenship through parents. India still allows only single citizenship. An Overseas Citizen of India card is a status, not a second citizenship.

1. Article 25(1): what is guaranteed

Article 25(1) says that "all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion".

1. "All persons". The right belongs to every person, not only to citizens. A foreigner in India has it.
2. Freedom of conscience. This is the inner freedom to believe, to doubt, or to have no religion. Belief alone can never be restricted.
3. To profess. To declare one's faith openly.
4. To practise. To perform the rituals and observances of the faith. Rituals are as much a part of religion as belief.
5. To propagate. To spread one's religion by explaining its teachings.

There is no right to convert another person. In Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 908, the Madhya Pradesh and Orissa Acts punished conversion by force, fraud or allurement. The Supreme Court upheld both Acts. "Propagate" means to spread or transmit one's religion. It does not mean a right to convert. What is freedom for one is freedom for the other in equal measure. The Acts were public order laws.

2. Clause (2)(b) lets the State make laws for social welfare and reform. It also lets the State throw open Hindu temples of a public character to all Hindus. Explanation II includes Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists for this purpose.
3. Explanation I says that wearing and carrying a kirpan is part of the Sikh religion.

3. The essential religious practices test

Courts protect only those practices that are essential to a religion. The test is made by judges. It is not written in the Constitution.

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, 1954 AIR 282. Facts: the head of the Shirur Mutt at Udipi challenged the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951. The Act let an executive officer take over a Math's administration and levied a contribution of up to five per cent of income. Held: several sections were void under articles 19(1)(f), 25 and 26. Religion is not necessarily belief in God. It can prescribe rituals, and even food and dress. What is essential is decided by the doctrines of the religion itself. Why it matters: it is the foundation of the whole subject.

Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (2019) 11 SCC 1 (Sabarimala). Facts: women aged ten to fifty were kept out of the Sabarimala temple by custom, under Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Rules of 1965. Held: by four to one, the exclusion was set aside. The majority held that the practice was not essential to the religion. Chandrachud J. held that excluding women for menstruation is a form of untouchability. Indu Malhotra J. dissented. She held that the devotees had a case for denominational protection under article 26. The review petitions came next. In Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association, decided on 14 November 2019, they were kept pending. Larger questions were sent to a bench of at least seven judges. So the test is not settled.

4. Article 26: rights of religious denominations

Every religious denomination, or a section of it, has the right:

1. to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;
2. to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;
3. to own and acquire property; and
4. to administer that property in accordance with law.

5. Article 27: no tax for a particular religion

No person shall be compelled to pay any tax whose proceeds are specifically appropriated for promoting a particular religion or denomination. The article bars a tax, not a fee. A fee pays for a service given to the payer. In Shirur Mutt, the five per cent contribution was held to be a tax. In Ratilal, the contribution under the Bombay Act was held to be a fee. Even-handed spending on all religions is outside article 27.

6. Article 28: religious instruction in schools

For a minor, the guardian gives consent.

1. Judges as theologians. The essentiality test makes courts decide what a religion requires. A well-known example is Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 360. There the Court said a mosque is not an essential part of Islam.
2. Uncertainty. Different benches have used different tests, and the larger bench reference is still pending.
3. The limit on reform. In Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, 1962 AIR 853, a law banning excommunication among the Dawoodi Bohras was struck down. The Court said reform cannot reform a religion "out of existence". The dissent warned that an excommunicated member becomes like an untouchable in his community.
4. Unequal reform. The temple-entry power in article 25(2)(b) names only Hindu institutions.

For full marks, cover: article 19(1)(a) and what it includes (press, circulation, information, silence); the eight grounds in article 19(2); the rule that the grounds are exhaustive; the test of reasonableness; prior restraint; and the leading cases with facts.

Introduction

Article 19(1)(a) says that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression. Free speech is the base of democracy. People cannot choose rulers or criticise them without it. But the freedom is not absolute. Article 19(2) lets the State make a law imposing reasonable restrictions on certain grounds only.

The right belongs to citizens. A foreigner cannot claim article 19.

1. What the freedom includes

"Expression" is wider than speech. It covers writing, printing, pictures, films and any other way of conveying an idea.

2. The leading cases on the scope of the right

Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, 1950 AIR 124. Facts: Cross Roads was a weekly journal published in Bombay. The Madras Government banned its entry and circulation in Madras, under section 9(1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act 1949. Held: freedom of speech includes the freedom to spread ideas, and that is ensured by freedom of circulation. Section 9(1-A) allowed restrictions for public safety and public order. Those were then outside article 19(2), so the section was wholly void. Why it matters: circulation is part of the freedom. The case also led to the First Amendment of 1951.

Sakal Papers (P) Ltd v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305. Facts: the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act 1956 fixed how many pages a newspaper could print at a given price. Its object was to help smaller newspapers. Held: the Act and Order were void under article 19(1)(a). The right covers the volume of circulation. Helping small newspapers is not a ground in article 19(2). Why it matters: a good purpose does not create a new ground.

The three circles of order. Think of three circles, one inside the other. Law and order is the widest. Public order sits inside it. Security of the State is the smallest, at the centre. A small quarrel disturbs law and order. A riot disturbs public order. An armed rebellion threatens the security of the State.

4. The grounds are exhaustive

The list in article 19(2) is closed. No other ground may be added.

Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt Ltd v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 515. Facts: newspapers challenged customs duty on imported newsprint as a burden on the press. Held: freedom of the press is part of article 19(1)(a). There can be no restriction on speech other than those in article 19(2). There can be no interference "in the name of public interest". Why it matters: "public interest" is not one of the grounds.

A law is required. An executive instruction is not enough. In Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, (1986) 3 SCC 615, school circulars could not restrict article 19(1)(a), because they had no statutory basis.

6. Vagueness and over-breadth

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1. Facts: section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000 punished online messages that were "grossly offensive" or caused "annoyance" or "inconvenience". Held: section 66A was struck down completely. Its words were vague, so an ordinary person could not know what was banned. It was over-broad, because it caught protected speech. It had a chilling effect, scaring people away from lawful speech. Section 69A, on blocking, was upheld because it needs a reasoned order on article 19(2) grounds. Why it matters: it separates discussion and advocacy, which are protected, from incitement, which may be punished.

7. Prior restraint

Prior restraint means stopping speech before it is published, for example by pre-censorship. It is not banned outright in India. Censorship of films has been upheld, because a film affects viewers differently from print. But courts examine prior restraint strictly, because it stops ideas before anyone can judge them.

Conclusion. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees every citizen freedom of speech and expression. It includes the press, circulation and the right to receive information. Article 19(2) allows reasonable restrictions on eight grounds only, and only by law. Indian Express Newspapers and Kaushal Kishor hold that the list is exhaustive, so "public interest" cannot justify a restriction. Shreya Singhal adds that a restriction must be clear and narrow. A restriction that is vague, excessive or outside the list will fail. The freedom is wide, but it is not absolute.

For full marks, cover: the text of article 12 and why it matters; the four named categories and "local authorities"; the meaning of "includes"; the growth of "other authorities" from Rajasthan Electricity Board to Pradeep Kumar Biswas; the Ajay Hasia factors; the negative case of Zee Telefilms; and whether the judiciary is State.

Article 12 and why it matters

A fundamental right is mainly a limit on the State. So the first question in any rights case is: was the wrong done by "the State"? Article 12 answers it. It says that in Part III, unless the context otherwise requires, "the State" includes:

1. the Government and Parliament of India;
2. the Government and the Legislature of each State;
3. all local authorities; and
4. all other authorities, within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.

"Other authorities": how the meaning grew

The State works through corporations, companies and societies, not only through departments. If "other authorities" meant only departments, a Government could escape Part III by moving a function into a company. The Supreme Court prevented this, step by step.

1. Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857. Facts: employees of the State Government were posted to the Electricity Board, a statutory body. One was refused consideration for promotion. Held: the Board is an "other authority". The phrase includes every authority created by statute with governmental or quasi-governmental powers. It does not matter that the Board also trades. The ejusdem generis rule does not apply. That rule would have limited "other authorities" to bodies like the ones named before it.

2. Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, AIR 1975 SC 1331. Held: the ONGC, LIC and the Industrial Finance Corporation are authorities under article 12. Their regulations have the force of law. Mathew J. first spoke of a body as an instrumentality or agency of the State.

5. Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, decided on 16 April 2002 by seven judges. Facts: the question was whether the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, a registered society, is State. An earlier case had said it was not. Held: it is State. The Ajay Hasia factors are not a rigid checklist. The real test, on the cumulative facts, is whether 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. Control that is merely regulatory is not enough. Why it matters: this is the test applied today.

6. Zee Telefilms Ltd v. Union of India, decided on 2 February 2005. Facts: Zee challenged the BCCI's cancellation of its telecast rights. Held: the BCCI is not State. It is not made by statute. The Government holds no shares in it and gives it almost no money. Its monopoly is not given by the State, and the State's control over it is only regulatory. Why it matters: a powerful body doing a public function is still not State unless the Government dominates it. The Court noted that a writ may still lie under article 226 where a body performs a public duty.

For full marks, cover: the text; its four parts (source of authority, nature of the State, objectives, date); its object and purpose; whether it is part of the Constitution and whether it can be amended (Berubari, Kesavananda); and its use in interpretation, with its limits (Berubari, Kesavananda, Minerva Mills, S.R. Bommai).

The text

"WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation; IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION."

3. The objectives. Justice, social, economic and political. Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. Equality of status and opportunity. Fraternity, a sense of common brotherhood, assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation. Justice, liberty and equality are secured. Fraternity is promoted, because a feeling cannot be compelled.
4. The date of adoption. 26 November 1949. That is the date of adoption, not of commencement, which was 26 January 1950.

Its purpose is to state what the Constitution sets out to achieve. It is the key to the minds of the makers. It grew from the Objectives Resolution of 1947. The Preamble was adopted last, on 17 October 1949, so that it would match the finished text.

Utility in interpretation

Where the Preamble can be used:

1. To resolve an ambiguity. If an article has two possible meanings, the court prefers the meaning that advances justice, liberty, equality and fraternity.
2. To identify the basic structure. In Minerva Mills Ltd v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789, the Forty-second Amendment had given Parliament unlimited power to amend the Constitution. The Court struck that down. It said such power "demolishes the pillars on which the Preamble rests".
3. To give meaning to rights. The Preamble's phrase "the dignity of the individual" has shaped the meaning of "life" in article 21.
4. To read the character of the State. In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918, the Court held that secularism, named in the Preamble, is a basic feature. A State Government acting against secularism may be dismissed under article 356. Democracy, which the Preamble declares, was used the same way. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299, free and fair elections were held to be part of the basic structure.

Where it cannot be used:

Conclusion. The Preamble states three things. The Constitution comes from the people of India. India is a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic. Its goals are justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. After Kesavananda Bharati it is part of the Constitution and can be amended, but not so as to destroy the basic structure. It gives no power and no enforceable right. Its value lies in interpretation. It resolves ambiguities, and since Kesavananda, Minerva Mills and S.R. Bommai it guides the courts in identifying the basic features the Constitution must keep.

2. Clause (2) gives the Court power to issue directions, orders or writs, "including" writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari.
3. Clause (3) lets Parliament give these powers to other courts as well.
4. Clause (4) says the right shall not be suspended except as the Constitution itself provides.

Why article 32 is the soul: it is itself a fundamental right

Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, 1950 AIR 124. Facts: the Madras Government banned the circulation of the journal Cross Roads. Its editor went straight to the Supreme Court under article 32. Madras argued that he should have gone first to the High Court under article 226. Held: the objection failed. Article 32 is placed in Part III, not in the chapter on the Court's jurisdiction. So the remedy is itself a fundamental right. The Court is "the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights". It cannot refuse to entertain a petition for their protection. There is no rule that other remedies must be used first. Why it matters: this is the main reason article 32 is called the soul of the Constitution.

The five writs

Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1086. Facts: Rudul Sah was acquitted of murder but kept in jail for over fourteen years after the acquittal. Held: the detention was wholly unjustified. Article 21 would lose its meaning if the Court could only order release. The Court awarded compensation as an interim measure. Why it matters: article 32 can give money relief for a breach of a fundamental right.

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960. Facts: a young man died in police custody. The police said he was run over by a train. Held: it was a custodial death. Compensation under article 32 or 226 is a public law remedy based on strict liability. Sovereign immunity is no defence. The Court said it must "forge such new tools as may be necessary". Why it matters: it gave compensation a firm legal basis.

2. Public interest litigation. In S.P. Gupta v. President of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, the Court widened standing, meaning who may file a case. Where poor or disadvantaged people cannot reach the Court, any member of the public may apply for them under article 32.

3. Guidelines and continuing orders. Because article 32(2) uses the words "directions or orders", the Court can issue guidelines and keep a case open to watch compliance.

Article 32 as part of the basic structure

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125. Held: the power of judicial review under article 32 and article 226 is an essential feature of the Constitution. It is part of the basic structure. Even a constitutional amendment cannot take it away. Provisions in articles 323A and 323B that excluded the High Courts and Supreme Court were struck down to that extent.

Article 32 and article 226 compared

Article 226 is wider in purpose. But only article 32 is itself a guaranteed right.

For full marks, cover: the text of articles 23 and 24; traffic in human beings; begar and other forced labour, and why payment is no defence; bonded labour; the exception for compulsory public service; child labour; the special features (binds private persons, makes an offence); the statutes; and the cases (PUDR, Bandhua Mukti Morcha, M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu).

Introduction

Articles 23 and 24 form the right against exploitation. They protect the weakest people: those sold, forced to work, or made to work as children. Both articles protect every person, not only citizens.

Article 23: traffic in human beings and forced labour

Article 23(1): "Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law."

People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473 (the Asian Games case). Facts: workers on the construction sites for the 1982 Asian Games in Delhi were paid below the minimum wage. A letter to Bhagwati J. was treated as a writ petition. Held: article 23 binds private persons as well as the State. It strikes at forced labour "in whatever form it may manifest itself". To limit it to unpaid labour would make the words "other similar forms of forced labour" meaningless. Why it matters: the compulsion may come from hunger or poverty, not only from force. So work for less than the minimum wage is forced labour.

4. Bonded labour. Bonded labour is work given in repayment of a debt or advance, or of a customary obligation. The worker loses the freedom to work elsewhere, the freedom to move, and the market value of his work.

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802. Facts: labourers in the stone quarries of Faridabad, Haryana, worked in dust, drank dirty water and lived in huts of piled stones. Some were not allowed to leave. Held:

1. Bonded labour is a form of forced labour, so the labourers could use article 23 and come under article 32.

1. Below fourteen. This matches article 21A, which gives every child of six to fourteen a right to free education. A child who must be in school cannot be at work.
2. Factory or mine. Here the ban is absolute.
3. Other hazardous employment. Elsewhere, the ban applies only if the work is hazardous, meaning dangerous to the child.

M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1997 SC 699. Facts: the match and firework factories of Sivakasi employed many children in dangerous work. An accident in a cracker factory killed 39 people. Held: article 24 has been a fundamental right since the Constitution began. The Court directed:

1. each offending employer to pay Rs 20,000 for every child employed unlawfully, into a Child Labour Rehabilitation-cum-Welfare Fund;
2. the Government to provide a job to an adult of the family, or else deposit Rs 5,000 for each child;
3. the money to support the family only while the child goes to school;
4. for non-hazardous work, working hours of not more than four to six a day, and two hours of education daily at the employer's cost.

2. The trafficking offences in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, which replaced the Indian Penal Code from 1 July 2024.
3. The Minimum Wages Act 1948.
4. The Transplantation of Human Organs Act 1994.
5. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015.

Conclusion. Article 23 bans trafficking, begar and every other form of forced labour, and makes a breach an offence. It binds private employers, and payment below the minimum wage is no defence (PUDR). Bonded labour is forced labour, and the law requires release and rehabilitation (Bandhua Mukti Morcha). Article 24 bans children below fourteen from factories, mines and hazardous work. M.C. Mehta and the 1986 Act, as amended in 2016, extend that protection. Together the two articles protect human dignity against exploitation by anyone.

Article 16(2) protects against discrimination in public employment. No citizen shall be ineligible or discriminated against on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth or residence. Descent and residence are two grounds more than in article 15(1).

Link with article 14. In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555, a senior IAS officer challenged his transfer from the post of Chief Secretary. The plea of mala fides failed on the facts. But the Court held that article 16 is a species of the genus of equality in article 14. Equality is opposed to arbitrariness. So a service decision that is arbitrary violates articles 14 and 16.

Permitted exceptions in article 16.

1. Clause (3): Parliament alone may require residence within a State for certain posts.
2. Clause (4): the State may reserve posts for any backward class not adequately represented in its services.
3. Clause (4A): reservation in promotion, with consequential seniority, for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
4. Clause (4B): unfilled reserved vacancies may be carried forward, outside the ceiling of the later year.

2. Adequate representation in the services. Public services run the country. When a large part of society has almost no share in them, government loses touch with those people. Reservation gives backward classes a voice in the administration. That is why article 16(4) speaks of classes "not adequately represented".

3. The Constitution's own directions. Article 46 directs the State to promote the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections, especially the SCs and STs. Article 335 asks that their claims be considered in appointments, consistently with efficiency of administration.

4. Social justice in the Preamble. The Preamble promises justice, social, economic and political, and equality of status and of opportunity. Reservation is one way to deliver it.

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477 (Mandal case). Facts: the Central Government reserved 27 per cent of posts for Other Backward Classes (OBCs), on the Mandal Commission report. Held: nine judges upheld the reservation and settled the law:

1. A provision under article 16(4) may be made by executive order. No statute is needed.

3. Promotion. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212, upheld article 16(4A), consequential seniority and the carry-forward rule. But the State had to collect quantifiable data on backwardness, inadequate representation and efficiency. In Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, decided on 26 September 2018, the data on the backwardness of SCs and STs was held unnecessary, because the Presidential lists already settle it. Data on representation and efficiency is still needed.

4. Efficiency. Article 335 requires that reservation stay consistent with the efficiency of administration.

Conclusion. Article 16 gives every citizen an equal chance at public employment and forbids discrimination on seven grounds. Reservation under article 16(4) does not break this rule. As N.M. Thomas and Indra Sawhney held, it carries equality further for classes that history held back and that are still under-represented. It has four limits. The fifty per cent ceiling is now flexible after Janhit Abhiyan. The creamy layer is excluded. Promotion needs data. And efficiency of administration must be kept. Within those limits, reservation is part of the Constitution's promise of equality of opportunity.

For full marks, cover: article 51A and its origin; the eleven duties in groups; their features; whether they are enforceable; and how courts use them.

Origin

The original Constitution had no duties. Part IVA, with a single article, article 51A, was added by the Forty-second Amendment in 1976, on the advice of the Swaran Singh Committee. Ten duties were added then. The eleventh, clause (k), came by the Eighty-sixth Amendment in 2002.

The eleven duties, in four groups

It is the duty of every citizen of India:

1. Towards the nation. (a) Abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem. (b) Cherish the ideals of the freedom struggle. (c) Uphold the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. (d) Defend the country and render national service when called.
2. Towards fellow citizens. (e) Promote harmony and common brotherhood beyond religious, linguistic and regional differences. Renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women. (f) Preserve our composite culture.

Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India, decided on 12 April 2012. The Right to Education Act 2009 made unaided schools admit 25 per cent of children from weaker sections. The Court upheld it. It cited article 51A(k) to say that the right to education places a burden on parents as well as on the State.

But a duty cannot cut down a fundamental right. In Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, (1986) 3 SCC 615, children who stood respectfully but did not sing the National Anthem could not be expelled. No law required them to sing.

Conclusion. Article 51A lists eleven duties of citizens. They cannot be enforced in court directly. But statutes give effect to many of them, and courts use them to read the Constitution and test laws.

3. It became inconsistent with a fundamental right on 26 January 1950.
4. The inconsistency was later removed, for example by a constitutional amendment.

The leading case

Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1955 SC 781. Facts: a 1947 Act let the Government run motor transport as a monopoly, excluding private operators. From 1950 this conflicted with article 19(1)(g), the freedom of trade. The First Amendment (1951) then allowed State monopolies under article 19(6). Held: the Act was only eclipsed. Once the amendment removed the conflict, the Act revived and became enforceable again.

Post-Constitution laws

A law made after 26 January 1950 is different. If it breaches a fundamental right, it is generally void from the start. Article 13(2) forbids the State to make such a law. It cannot be revived by a later amendment.

For full marks, cover: article 20(2); the four requirements; the meaning of "same offence"; departmental proceedings; Maqbool Hussain; and the statutory protection after acquittal.

Meaning

Article 20(2) says: "No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once." This is the rule against double jeopardy. It protects a person from being tried and punished again and again for one offence.

Four requirements

All four must be present for the bar to apply:

1. There was an earlier prosecution.
2. It was before a court of law or judicial tribunal.
3. It ended in punishment.
4. The second case is for the same offence.

2. An earlier acquittal. The article needs a punishment. But criminal procedure law bars a fresh trial after an acquittal. This rule was in section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, and is now carried into the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023.

Conclusion. Article 20(2) bars a second prosecution and punishment for the same offence. It applies only after an earlier prosecution and punishment by a court, as Maqbool Hussain held. Departmental proceedings and offences with different ingredients fall outside it. Protection after an acquittal comes from criminal procedure law, not from the Constitution.

1. Representative standing. If a person or class cannot come to court because of poverty, helplessness or disability, any member of the public may come for them.
2. Citizen standing. For a public injury, any member of the public with sufficient interest may sue. A mere busybody may not.

New procedures

1. Letters treated as petitions, as in People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473, on the Asian Games workers.
2. Commissions of inquiry, to gather facts, as in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802.
3. Continuing mandamus, where the court monitors compliance, as in Vineet Narain v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 889.

What PIL has achieved

1. Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, 1979 AIR 1369: undertrial prisoners held longer than their possible sentence were released. Free legal aid and speedy trial became part of article 21.