Constitutional law of India : Probable questions and answers.
Q1) who is a citizen? How citizenship maybe acquired through
domicile? 15 marks
Ans : citizenship is a process by which the state under the
constitution confers certain rights , civil and political on a person. In other
words a person who enjoys full civil and political rights.
There are two types of citizenship:
1)
Dual: Citizenship of the federation and another
citizenship of the state. : eg America.
2)
Single citizenship : one citizenship for the
whole country. Eg: India.
Articles 5 to 8 deal with citizenship at the commencement of
the constitution.
Art 9 to 11 deal with modes of acquisition and loss of
citizenship.
How citizenship can be acquired through domicile:
Citizenship by domicile ( art 5)
Domicile means s a permanent home or a place where a person
resides with the intention of permanently remaining there.
The following conditions have to be satisfied to acquire
citizenship through domicile:
1)
At the time of the commencement of the constitution
he must have his domicile in the territory
of India.
2)
He must fulfill any of the following conditions:
a) he was born in India or
b) either of his parents was born in India
or c) he must have been ordinarily resident in the territory of India
for not less than five years immediately before the commencement of the
constitution.
Domicile in India
is considered an essential requirement for acquiring the status of Indian
citizenship.
Two elements are necessary for the existence of domicile
1)
domicile of a particular kind
2)
An intention of a particular kind.
The residence need not be continuous but it must be
indefinite, not purely fleeing. The intention must be permanent intention to
reside for ever in the country where the residence has been taken up. Domicile
is not the same thing as residence. Mere residence in a place is not sufficient;
it must be accompanied by the intention to make it his permanent home.
Case laws: Mohammad raza vs state of Bombay,
The appellant came to India
in 1938. He went on a pilgrimage to Iraq in 1945. He was registered a
foreigner and several times his stay in India was extended. In 1957 his
request to extend the stay period was refused. He appealed saying he must be
regarded as a citizen under article 5. But it was dismissed. The court held
that though he was original resident he did not acquire Indian citizenship
because he did not have a domicile in India. His application for
extending his stay in India
made from time to time forfeited this conclusion. The domicile of choice
continues until the former domicile has been resumed or another has been
acquired
Q2) Define state. Explain the tests to determine which other
authorities can be included in the definition.
Ans: State is defined under article 12 of the Indian constitution
for the purpose of protection promotion and enforcement of fundamental rights
as provided in the part III of the constitution. Under art 36 the same
definition is used for DPSP unless otherwise provided under part IV. It does
not apply to part XIV or other parts.
The word state includes the following:
1)
Union government and union legislature.
2)
State government and state legislature.
3)
Local authorities and other authorities within
the territory of India
and under the control of the government of India.
Local authority refers to local self government.
It can mean municipal committee, mining settlement boards,
panchayats or other authorities legally entrusted by the government to manage
or control local funds.
Other authorities: what all it includes.
1) Interpreted first time in shantha bai Vs University of
madras. Here the question was whether the university comes under the definition
of state. It was held that though Madras
University was state
aided it was a body corporate and does not come within the ambit of state. It
was also held that only bodies exercising government or sovereign function are
the test for state. But this was rejected in ujjambai vs state of UP and held
that sales tax officer comes under the definition of state.
2) Statutory bodies: statutory bodies are those created by a
statute and some of them are LIC ONGC IFC. In Rajasthan vs mohanlal it was held
that all authorities created by statute on which power is conferred upon by law
comes within meaning of state under art 12.
3) Agency/ instrumentality of the state: If a body that is an agency or
instrumentality of the state and it is a body corporate registered under the
companies act 1956 but it is not a statutory body it still comes within meaning
of state under art 12.
Case law for this is Ramanadayaram shetty vs International
airport authority.
The following are the tests to determine if a body is an
agency or instrumentality of the state:
1)
Financial resources of the state are the chief
funding source.
2)
Deep and pervasive state control.
3)
Functional character is governmental in nature.
4)
If a department is transferred from government
to corporations.
5)
Monopoly status is enjoyed and is conferred upon
by the state or state protected.
Above test are only illustrative and not exhaustive.
Q3) what is double jeopardy? Explain. – 5 marks
Ans: Double jeopardy means double punishment. Here
it refers to being punished twice for the same offence. No person can be
punished twice for the same offence.
Case laws: maqbool hussain vs state of Mumbai. Here the
accused was caught by the customs for bringing in gold without declaration from
a foreign country. The authorities seized the gold under the sea customs act
and he was also charged under the foreign exchange management act .Here the
prosecution under FEMA did not amount to double jeopardy as the act done under
sea customs act was not a judicial order of a court.
Q4) Indian constitution in neither unitary nor federal but
is a mix of both, discuss. 15 marks.
Following are the essentials of a federal constitution:
1)
Distribution of powers.
2)
Supremacy of the constitution.
3)
A written constitution.
4)
Rigidity.
5)
Authority of courts.
Indian constitution possesses all of the above but it
modifies the federal principle in the following:
1)
Appointment of governors.
2)
Parliament’s power to legislate in national
interest.
3)
Parliament’s power to form new states and alter
boundaries of existing states.
4)
Emergency provisions.
Thus we can say that the above modification provide for
unitary state features also, we can conclude saying Indian constitution is a
mix of both.
Q5) No person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law. Discuss with a
leading case. 15 marks.
Ans: The right to life and liberty is a fundamental right
and includes the following:
1)
Right to privacy.
2)
Right to education.
3)
Right to clean water and air.
4)
Right to livelihood.
5)
Right to die is not a fundamental right.
All of the above are rights which cannot be taken away
except under a procedure established by law.
Maneka Gandhi case gives us a new dimension on this aspect.
Maneka Gandhi vs union of India.
The meaning and content of words personal liberty came up
for consideration to the Supreme Court. In this case the SC gave the widest
possible interpretation to personal liberty.
Facts of the case: The petitioners passport was impounded by
central government the act authorized the central government to do so if it was
in the general public interest. The
government of India
declined to give reasons for the action in the name of public interest. The
petitioner challenged this on the basis that there was no hearing given to
seize the passport nor was there any reason given by the government. However
the government disclosed in affidavit that the petitioner’s presence may be
needed in connection with proceedings of a commission of inquiry.
The attorney general filed a statement that the petitioner
could make a representation in respect of impounding the passport that the rep
would be dealt with expeditiously in accordance with law. The sc also held that
the govt was not justified in withholding the reasons for impounding the
passport from the petitioner.
It was held that the procedure thus est. by the act for impounding
a passport is in conformity with the requirement of art 21 and is not violative
of that article.
Following conditions have to be fulfilled before a person is
deprived of his property.
1)
There must be a valid law.
2)
There law must provide a procedure.
3)
The procedure must be just, fair and reasonable.
4)
The law must satisfy the requirement of art 14
and 17 that is it must be reasonable.
Q6) can preamble be amended under article 368? Answer with
the aid of a decided case.
The preamble can be amended or not under article 368 can be
understood with the following landmark case.
Keshavananda bharati vs state of kerala :
Facts of the case : In that case attorney general argued
that by virtue of amending power in article 368 even preamble can be amended.
It was said that since preamble was a part of the constitution it could be
amended like any other provision of the constitution. The petitioners how ever
contended that the amending power in article 368 is limited. The preamble
creates implied limitation on the power of amendment. The preamble contains
basic elements of our constitution. Amending power cannot be used to destroy
these basic features. It was argued on the basis that preamble is not part of
constitution. The Supreme Court held that preamble is a part of our
constitution . On the question whether preamble can be amended or not it was
held that preamble is part of our constitution it can be amended subject to
this condition that basic features present in preamble cannot be changed. It
was held that these basic features are our edifice of our constitution and that
if these features are amended the whole system will collapse. No one can
suggest these words are ambiguous in any manner. The amending power cannot
result in the constitution being changed in such a way that it ceases to be a
sovereign democratic republic. It would only wreck the constitution.
Q7) A magistrate issues an order authorizing investigating
officer to take specimen handwriting and fingerprints of Mr. x an accused
against his willingness. X challenges the order stating that it violates his
Fundamental right under article 20(3) . Decide.
In state vs m Krishna Mohan the SC has held that taking of
specimen handwriting and fingerprint from accused is not prohibited under
article 20(3) as being witness against himself.