LL.B. (Hons.) / LL.B. 3-Year / 5-Year Integrated Programme
Constitutional Law - I (Indian Constitutional Law)
General Instructions
- Attempt all questions from Part A. Part A is compulsory.
- In Part B, attempt any FOUR out of FIVE questions.
- In Part C, attempt any ONE out of TWO questions.
- Marks are indicated against each question.
- Support your answers with relevant constitutional provisions, case laws, and judicial pronouncements.
- Candidates are permitted to carry bare Acts only. No commentary or guidebooks are allowed.
- Write legibly and maintain clarity of expression.
Part A - Short Answer Questions
Attempt ALL questions. Each question carries 2 marks. Answer each question in 2-3 lines. (10 x 2 = 20 Marks)
What is the significance of the words 'Socialist' and 'Secular' inserted into the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976? Can the Preamble be amended under Article 368?[2 Marks]
Distinguish between 'Procedure Established by Law' under Article 21 and 'Due Process of Law' as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978).[2 Marks]
What is the doctrine of 'Colourable Legislation'? How does it differ from the doctrine of 'Pith and Substance'?[2 Marks]
Explain the concept of 'Reasonable Classification' under Article 14 as laid down in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952).[2 Marks]
What are the grounds on which the President of India can be impeached under Article 61? Briefly outline the procedure.[2 Marks]
Define 'Money Bill' under Article 110. What is the role of the Rajya Sabha in the passage of a Money Bill?[2 Marks]
State the scope of judicial review under Article 13. Can a constitutional amendment be challenged under Article 13(2)?[2 Marks]
What is the difference between a 'National Emergency' under Article 352 and 'President's Rule' under Article 356? Mention one landmark case for each.[2 Marks]
Explain the concept of 'Territorial Nexus' as a limitation on the legislative power of State Legislatures. Refer to the decision in State of Bombay v. R.M.D.C. (1957).[2 Marks]
What are the Fundamental Duties enumerated in Article 51A? Are they judicially enforceable? Refer to AIIMS Students' Union v. AIIMS (2001).[2 Marks]
Part B - Essay Type Questions
Attempt any FOUR out of FIVE questions. Each question carries 10 marks. (4 x 10 = 40 Marks)
Critically analyse the 'Basic Structure Doctrine' as propounded by the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). Trace its evolution through subsequent decisions in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), and I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007). Is the doctrine a judicial innovation or a constitutional necessity? Discuss.[10 Marks]
Discuss the scope and ambit of the Right to Equality under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution. How has the Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of Article 14 from mere 'formal equality' to 'substantive equality'? Analyse with reference to E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974), Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), and Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018). Also discuss the validity of reservations under Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4) in light of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992).[10 Marks]
Examine the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368. Discuss the interplay between Fundamental Rights and the Amending Power in light of the following decisions: (a) Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), (b) Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965), (c) Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), (d) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). What are the limitations on the amending power after the doctrine of Basic Structure?[10 Marks]
Discuss the nature, scope, and significance of the Directive Principles of State Policy under Part IV of the Constitution. How have the courts harmonised the relationship between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and DPSPs (Part IV)? Analyse with reference to State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951), Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), and Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. (1993). Has the 42nd Amendment altered this relationship?[10 Marks]
Examine the Emergency Provisions under Part XVIII of the Constitution (Articles 352-360). Discuss the safeguards introduced by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978 to prevent misuse of emergency powers. How did the Supreme Court deal with the suspension of Fundamental Rights during the Emergency in A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)? Was the decision effectively overruled in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)?[10 Marks]
Part C - Problem / Case Study Type Questions
Attempt any ONE out of TWO questions. Each question carries 30 marks. (1 x 30 = 30 Marks)
The State Legislature of State 'X' enacts the 'State Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 2024' which contains the following provisions:[30 Marks]
(a) Section 3 mandates that all private unaided minority educational institutions must reserve 30% of their seats for students belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, to be filled through a State-level centralised counselling process. Examine its validity under Articles 15(5), 29, and 30.[8 Marks]
(b) Section 5 requires all private educational institutions, including minority institutions, to obtain a 'No Objection Certificate' from a State Regulatory Authority before admitting any student, failing which the institution shall be de-recognised. Does this violate the right under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 30(1)?[7 Marks]
(c) Section 8 caps the maximum fee that can be charged by private unaided institutions at an amount determined by a Fee Regulatory Committee appointed by the State Government. Is fee regulation of unaided institutions constitutionally permissible?[7 Marks]
(d) A group of private unaided minority educational institutions challenge Sections 3, 5, and 8 of the Act as violative of Articles 19(1)(g), 26, 29, and 30 of the Constitution. Advise the petitioners on the constitutional validity of each provision. Discuss with reference to T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002), P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005), and Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India (2012). Also analyse whether Article 15(5) inserted by the 93rd Amendment applies to minority institutions.[8 Marks]
The Parliament of India passes the 'National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2024' along with the 'Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-First Amendment) Act, 2024' which seeks to replace the existing Collegium System of appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts with a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). The NJAC is to consist of the Chief Justice of India, two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, the Union Law Minister, and two eminent persons nominated by a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the CJI, and the Leader of Opposition.[30 Marks]
(a) Critically examine whether the establishment of NJAC violates the 'independence of the judiciary,' which has been held to be part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. Discuss with reference to Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2016) (Fourth Judges Case), S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982) (First Judges Case), and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) (Second Judges Case).[10 Marks]
(b) Can a constitutional amendment that damages or destroys a basic feature of the Constitution be struck down by the Supreme Court? Discuss the scope and limits of judicial review of constitutional amendments in light of Kesavananda Bharati (1973), Minerva Mills (1980), and I.R. Coelho (2007). Is the power of judicial review itself part of the basic structure?[10 Marks]
(c) Assuming the NJAC Act is upheld, analyse the implications for the doctrine of separation of powers. Does the inclusion of the Union Law Minister and two non-judicial eminent persons in the NJAC constitute executive interference in judicial appointments? Would such a composition satisfy the test of 'primacy of the judiciary' laid down in the Second and Third Judges Cases? Discuss.[10 Marks]