Constitutional Law One - Course Manual JAN 2018
Constitutional Law One - Course Manual JAN 2018
Constitutional Law One - Course Manual JAN 2018
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
COURSE CODE LW1608
Course Instructors:
Amit Bindal,
Alexander Fischer, John Sebastian, Sarbani Sen.
1
INFORMATION ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I OFFERED BY JINDAL GLOBAL
LAW SCHOOL
The information provided herein is by the Course Coordinator. The following information
contains the official record of the details of the course.
Part I
Pre-requisites: Nil
Pre-cursors: Nil
The above information shall form part of the University database and may be uploaded to
the KOHA Library system and catalogued and may be distributed amongst other students.
2
Part II
A. COURSE DESCRIPTION
The Fundamental Rights were drafted with a view to transforming the structure of Indian society
and thus the topics of positive rights and affirmative action become important. These rights also
provide limits on state action. All the Fundamental Rights can be enforced against the state.
However, the standards by which they are enforced differ depending on which right is sought to
be enforced. The topics will thus include a discussion on the types of standards by which the
rights are enforced against the state. Overall, the course will attempt to create an understanding
of the textual structure and linkages between the rights, to critically investigate several leading
Supreme Court decisions with a view to identifying the rules of constitutional law laid down and
also to understand the processes of argumentation and judicial reasoning with respect to these
rights.
The course also examines the importance of Part IV of the Constitution in the context of the
commitment of the Constitution towards social justice. The course will constantly explore that
which constitutional interpretations helped in the attainment of Justice which is the cardinal
aspiration of the constitution.
B. COURSE AIMS
This course deals with different aspects of rights under Part III and Part IV and aims to foster an
understanding of the:
To pass this course, students must obtain a minimum of 50% in each of the coursework and the
examination elements of the assessment. Coursework for this purpose means those ways in
which students are assessed otherwise than by the end of session examination. End of semester
exam will be in the form of a traditional 3 hours written exam and will carry 50 marks. Mid-term
assessments (other than final examinations) will carry 50% of the marks. The format for the mid-
term assessments will be determined individually by each instructor and communicated in detail
in class.
EXAMINATIONS
The course has a final examination based on the reading assigned to each topic by the course
instructor. The examinations will have hypothetical fact patterns and the students are expected to
identify the constitutional issues that they give rise to, analyze the issues and apply correct
principles of law to resolve them. The examination can also have questions based on theoretical
aspects of constitutional law.
ATTENDANCE
6
All students are required to have a minimum of 75% attendance. Any student falling short of
75% will not be permitted to take the final end of term examination (except in exceptional
circumstances).
Individual course instructors will announce their office hours in advance to the respective
sections preferably in the first session with them and latest by the end of first week.
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Serious consequences will ensue for any student involved in plagiarism. All submissions must be
original. Any idea, sentence or paragraph that is taken from any published material must be
credited with the original source and should be duly referenced.
Non-compliance with the university’s policy on plagiarism will be severely dealt with and the
student involved will be awarded a “F” grade.
7
60 to 64 B+ 5 Descent Knowledge of the subject matter but average
critical and analytical skills.
55 to 59 B 4 Limited knowledge of the subject matter and
irrelevant use of materials and, poor critical and
analytical skills.
50 to 54 B- 5 Poor comprehension of the subject matter; poor
critical and analytical skills and marginal use of the
relevant materials. Will require repeating the course.
Below 50 F 0 None of the Above
The class format will combine lecture and discussion, with a primary focus on the latter.
Students are expected to prepare for and participate in class discussion on a regular basis.
Students are expected to review the delineated course materials in advance of each class and to
raise questions and present their thoughts on the material during the course of class discussions.
Part III
A. KEYWORD SYLLABUS
Concept of a “right”; state; law; constitutionalism; equality; due process; freedom of speech;
freedom of religion; positive rights; affirmative action; reasonable restrictions; right to life and
personal liberty; judicial review; directive principles; public interest litigation; basic structure.
B. READINGS
Durga Das Basu, “Commentary on the constitution of India” [New Delhi: Wadhwa and
Company]
Granville Austin, “The Indian constitution: cornerstone of a nation,” [Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2007]
8
B. Shiva Rao, “The framing of India’s constitution” [New Delhi: Indian Institute of Public
Administration, 1966]
Granville Austin, “Working a democratic constitution: a history of the Indian experience” [New
Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010)
S.P. Sathe, “Judicial activism in India,” [New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2006]
As per the Appendix to the Course Manual, relevant chapters from Shukla or Jain are required
reading for each topic. Apart from these commentaries, articles or texts (if any) pertaining to
each topic will be announced by the instructors before the topic is discussed at least a week
before the class. A suggested list of supplementary readings for some of the topics has been
included in the Appendix but can be modified by the instructors.
Case law (the full list of relevant judicial decisions pertaining to each topic) will be announced at
least a week before each topic is discussed in class. A list of important judicial decisions for each
topic is mentioned in the Appendix to the Course Manual but may be supplemented by the
course instructor.
Laws
Constitution of India
Relevant Constitutional Amendment acts
Part IV
A. LECTURE PROGRAMME
This syllabus should be viewed as a general guide. The syllabus may be revised during the
course of the semester. Students will be informed of changes made.
The following programme is intended to be only indicative and is subject to variation as and when
circumstances may render it necessary:
9
(Article 19)
8 Safeguards to persons accused of crimes (Articles 20 and 22)
9-10 Right to life and personal liberty (Articles 21- 21A)
11 Right to freedom of religion (Articles 25-28)
12 Cultural and Minority Rights (Articles 29-30)
13 The “Basic Structure” doctrine
14 Public Interest Litigation and Social Rights Jurisprudence
15 Review week
WEEK 1: INTRODUCTION
Questions: What is the relationship between a Constitution and constitutionalism? What is the
significance of a written bill of rights (comparison with the American and British Constitutions)?
What were the discussions in the Constituent Assembly debates about the rights and their spheres
of protection under the Constitution? What fundamental values and principles are embodied in
the Constitution and what is the structure and interrelationship between Parts III and IV? What is
the enforcement mechanism for these rights? What is the relevance of preamble and its
aspirations which set the constitutional goals to be attained in future?
Questions: How do we understand the meaning of constitutional equality? How can we define
and distinguish between the principles of “equality before the law” and “equal protection of the
laws”? What is the difference between formal equality and substantive equality or positive
versus negative equality? What are the tests to determine the constitutional validity of laws under
Article 14? What is the test of reasonable classification? What principles emerge from Article 14
(“Reasonableness”; “non-arbitrariness”) for regulating the exercise of administrative discretion?
What are the grounds of prohibited discrimination under Article 15 (1) and (2)?
Questions: What are the instances of constitutional classifications under Articles 15-16 (clauses
(3) and (4) of Article 15 and clause (4) of Article 16 (special provisions for women and
children and of backward classes)? Under the “reservations” issue what principles have the
courts laid down to determine “backwardness” and “quantum of reservations under Articles
15 and 16? These two provisions have been the subject of great controversy within a
complex context of various Supreme Court decisions since Balaji (1963) and constitutional
amendments seeking to overturn these decisions. We will also examine the validity of
reservations for certain groups (“Other backward Classes”) in public employment,
reservations in promotions and admission to educational institutions by reference to key
judicial decisions and existing constitutional amendments and lastly the uniqueness of Article
17 as novel anti-discrimination provision in the constitution.
This module will delve upon analysis of Article 19 of the Constitution. The primary focus
will be on Article 19 (1) (a) but different course instructors would briefly cover other clauses
of Article 19 in their respective lectures. However, a detailed exploration of interpretation
and various aspects of freedom of ‘speech and expression’ are aimed to be studied in the
module. An attempt will be made to study how the conceptual issues of gender and national
security become relevant for constitutional law in order to understand meaning-making by
courts of categories such as obscenity, hate-speech, sedition etc.
Questions: Why this constitutional provision has been restricted only to citizens? What are
the grounds on which “reasonable restrictions” be imposed on the right and how the courts
have understood the meaning of ‘reasonable’ in different contexts? What has been the role of
the Supreme Court in protecting freedom of print and the electronic media?
12
WEEK 8: SAFEGUARDS TO PERSONS ACCUSED OF CRIMES
(ARTICLES 20 AND 22)
Indian constitution guarantees some due process rights to the accused of crimes in the chapter
of fundamental rights. This module will briefly analyze the contours and scope of
constitutional provisions.
Article 21 is an article which is known to be immense interpretive potential. Despite its terse
and concise phraseology, it has seen an interpretive expansion. This module will attempt to
build the foundation on how and why this article became a site for so much litigation.
Further, mapping the historic trajectory in the interpretation of this article we will try to
understand whether the ever-expansive scope of this provision truly emancipatory or is
merely populist? We will study the interpretations and scope of this article as it has emerged
in the Indian constitutional history.
Questions: What is the concept of ‘life’ and ‘personal liberty’ under Article 21? What is
meant by ‘procedure established by law?’ and how is it different from ‘due process of law’?
What has been the impact of Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (A.I.R. 1978 SC 597) on
expanding the right to personal liberty? What is the relationship between Articles 14, 19 and
21 after the Maneka Gandhi case? How has the Supreme Court interpreted Article 21 to
incorporate the American concept of “due process” in Article 21 and what consequent
standards has the court created over time to impose restrictions on state action to protect
13
personal liberty? How has the judiciary expanded the scope of Article 21 by reading positive
rights that are enforceable against the state into the article?
Religion has been a site of controversy right from the inception of the Constitution. However,
secularism, which is erroneously seen as some kind of anti-dote to religious worldview, has
been equally contested as a doctrine in 20th century political science discourses. This module
will analyze how the Constitution of India guarantees religious freedom and what are the
issues and problems that exist by way of interpretation of the constitutional provisions. The
aim of this module is to understand the constitutional spectrum of religious freedom and
operationalization of keywords such as ‘secularism’, ‘denomination’ and limits which
constitution puts on freedom of religion.
Questions: What is the nature and scope of freedom of conscience and the right to freely
profess, practice and propagate religion? Do atheists have a Fundamental Right under Article
25? What could constitute “reasonable restrictions” on that right? What concept of
secularism underlies these provisions of the constitution and what has been the approach of
the Supreme Court towards protecting the value of secularism in the text? What are the
implications of the judicially evolved distinction between essential and non-essential
religious practices and between religious and secular, commercial and political activity for
understanding the scope of this right?
This module to provide a brief description to the amorphous category ‘minority’. It will
discuss which minorities find recognition by the constitution and to what extent such
protection has helped to further the cause of justice. We will discuss whether minority
protection and its judicial interpretation has led to strengthening of democracy or has served
mere populist agendas.
Questions: What is the regime of special rights created by the constitution for cultural,
religious and even linguistic minorities? How is a “minority” community defined and what
is meant by their right to “establish and administer” educational institutions? What are the
exemptions that have been claimed by the minority institutions from regulations that apply to
14
state run or state aided institutions of the majority community in order to gain “autonomy” in
managing their institutions of professional or higher education? Article 29 uses the
expression ‘minorities’ in its marginal note but does not employ it in the text of the
provision, which uses the expression ‘all section of citizens’. What interpretive tools have
been employed by the courts to resolve this contradiction?
The basic structure doctrine has been a subject matter of rigorous academic discussion. Some
jurists have viewed it as high point of judicial activism while others have questioned its
interpretive legitimacy. It has become a constant reference point in academic writings on
Indian constitutional history as well as in juridical opinions. This module will look into the
origins of this doctrine in the context of controversies surrounding the notion of right to
property. Further, we will situate the doctrine as an aspect of judicial review which was not
present in the original text of the Constitution.
Questions: What is the doctrine of the “basic structure” that was judicially developed in 1973
to identify and protect certain seminal values and the core of Indian constitutional identity?
By its very nature the doctrine is vague and has to be fleshed out from case to case. How can
one determine what are the basic constitutional values that need to be included in this
doctrine and what are the standards for judging the constitutional validity of a constitutional
amendment by reference to this doctrine?
This module will study the role played by public interest litigation in enforcing the rights
under Part IV of the Constitution of India. This will be done by examining the relationship
between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principle of State Policy – which one of these
two is more important than the other when they come in direct conflict. And to what extent
can the DPSPs can be used to interpret Fundamental Rights. In the leading Minerva Mills
case, the majority opinion declared several provisions of the 42nd Amendment as
unconstitutional as violative of the ‘harmony’ between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs.
Questions: Social rights have been incorporated in the Indian constitution under “Directive
Principles of State policy” in Part IV. Part IV is not judicially enforceable but by expanding
the concept of “life” in Article 21 and using “human dignity” as an intrinsic value in
15
understanding this right, the Supreme Court has recognized various social and economic
rights as enforceable fundamental rights. What are the leading cases through which the
Supreme Court has understood and designed the relationship between Parts III and IV and
used the Directive Principles as an interpretive tool to read social and economic rights into
Part III? How have judicial decisions, constitutional amendments and current legislation
impacted on the constitutional status and scope of the right to education and the right to
food?
16
Appendix:
Case List for Constitutional Law I (Jindal Global Law School, Spring 2018)
This is a basic list of landmark cases that shape the topics taught in Constitutional Law I under
the various themes. The list can be expanded as per the individual instructor’s choice and
different readings can be chosen by different professors to frame the debates contextually. The
list of cases and reading materials below serves as a common core for this course – at the same
time other reading materials and cases can be chosen by the instructor in class and this is only an
indicative list.
18
(1)State of West Bengal V Anwar Ali Sarkar
(6) E.V. Chinnaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors AIR 2005 SC 162
(9) Anuj Garg vs. Hotel Association of India, AIR 2008 SC 663
Supplementary:
19
(4) M. Galanter, “Competing equalities: the law and the backward classes in India,” (OUP:
1984)
(4) Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. V Union of India (AIR 1962 SC 305)
(7) (8) Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP, AIR 1957 SC 620
Supplementary:
(3) N. Ravi, “Freedom of press and human rights: managing the tension” in K. Chockalingam
and C. Raj Kumar eds. (2006)
(4) Virendra Kumar, “Free press and the independent judiciary: their juxtaposition in the law
of contempt of court,” 47 JILI 447 (2005)
Case Law:
20
(1) A.K. Roy v UOI AIR 1982 SC 710
(2) D.K. Basu v State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
(3) PUCR v UOI 2003 (10) SCALE 967
(4) Selvi v State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263
(VIII) Access to justice, democratization of the judicial process and social rights
jurisprudence under Art. 21
Case law:
21
Readings: (1)Relevant chapters from Shukla and Jain
Supplementary:
(1) Upendra Baxi, “Taking suffering seriously: judicial activism in the Supreme Court of
India,” (1985) Third World Legal Studies, Vol. 4, Art. 6
(2) Sandra Fredman, “Restructuring the courts: Public Interest Litigation in the Indian
Courts” in Sandra Fredman, Human Rights Transformed: Positive Rights and Positive
Duties (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)
(3) Nick Robinson, “Expanding judiciaries: India and the rise of the good governance court,”
Washington University Global Studies Law Review, (2009) Vol. 8, 52-53.
[I have also referred to a number of case law on various social and economic rights under
Art. 21 including legislation and case law on the right to education and the right to food].
Supplementary:
(3)Ronojoy Sen, “Articles of Faith” and “Indian Supreme Court and Secularism”
22
(X) Arts. 29- 30 Cultural and Educational Rights
Supplementary:
23
24