Unit 3 of Constitutional Law – I (syllabus: Module 3 — Articles 23–24; Articles 25–28; Articles 29–30; Article 32 and public interest litigation; Articles 31, 33, 34 and 35). Below: what the unit covers, the provisions it turns on, and the cases an examiner expects you to name.
What this unit covers
- Is paying a worker less than the minimum wage a constitutional wrong as well as a statutory one?
- Which religious practices does Article 25 actually protect?
- How far may the State regulate a minority educational institution under Article 30?
- Can the Supreme Court award money in a writ petition, and on what basis?
- Who may bring a petition when the person injured cannot come to court?
- When does prohibition lie and when does certiorari lie?
Treat that list as a self-test: recite each topic's rule from memory before you open its cases.
Provisions
- Constitution of India, s. Art. 23
- Constitution of India, s. Art. 25
- Constitution of India, s. Art. 30
- Constitution of India, s. Art. 32, with Art. 226
- Constitution of India, s. Art. 32(2), with Art. 226(1)
Leading cases
- People's Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India
- The Commissioner
- T.M.A. Pai Foundation v State of Karnataka
- Nilabati Behera v State of Orissa
- S.P. Gupta v Union of India
- A.K. Kraipak v Union of India
Full case summaries
- Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (Supreme Court, 1954) — what "religion" protects
- Rev. Stainislaus v State of Madhya Pradesh (Supreme Court, 1977) — the right to propagate is not a right to convert
- Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala (Supreme Court, 1986) — the National Anthem case
- Seshammal v State of Tamil Nadu (Supreme Court, 1972) — the archaka's appointment is secular
- N. Adithayan v Travancore Devaswom Board (Supreme Court, 2002) — caste is no qualification for the priesthood
- Commissioner of Police v Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta (Supreme Court, 2004) — the Ananda Marga Tandava case
- Indian Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerala (Supreme Court, 2018) — the Sabarimala case
- T.M.A. Pai Foundation v State of Karnataka (Supreme Court, 2002) — eleven judges on minority institutions
- Islamic Academy of Education v State of Karnataka (2003) and P.A. Inamdar v State of Maharashtra (2005) — after T.M.A. Pai
- S.P. Gupta v Union of India (Supreme Court, 1981) — the Judges' Transfer case and the birth of public interest litigation
- Nilabati Behera v State of Orissa (Supreme Court, 1993) — compensation as a public-law remedy
- State of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal (Supreme Court, 2010) — the three phases of public interest litigation and the directions against its abuse
- Rudul Sah v State of Bihar (Supreme Court, 1983) — compensation in a habeas corpus petition