Article 226, Constitution

57 Constitutional Cases in Brief: Quick Notes

Issue: Can the government choose judges even when the Chief Justice disagrees?

48 min read 16 Oct 2026

57 Landmark Constitutional Cases: Complete Notes

About this topic ▶ Watch this part of the lecture (0:00) These notes cover the 57 most important cases of Indian Constitutional Law . They are the cases that keep coming up in LL.B. examinations, in judiciary examinations and in every serious discussion of constitutional law. Every case is studied…

411 min read 16 Oct 2026

Administrative Actions Meaning Nature, Scope and Significance

Administrative actions refer to actions taken under administrative law, which deals with the powers and duties of government authorities. These actions are legal measures related to public administrative bodies, aimed a…

9 min read 9 Sep 2026

Administrative Law One Shot

Administrative law is "the law relating to the administration. It determines the organization, powers, and duties of administrative authorities.

61 min read 9 Sep 2026

Alternative Dispute Resolution One Shot

Section 89 of the CPC, introduced in 2002, encourages courts to refer cases to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods like arbitration, conciliation, mediation, and judicial settlement. However, the section initia…

80 min read 9 Sep 2026

B.N.S.S.

The objectives of criminal procedure are crucial for the effective functioning of the criminal justice system.

201 min read 9 Sep 2026

B.N.S.S. Case Law

Introduction : This case addresses whether requiring an accused person to undergo medical tests, such as providing blood and semen samples, violates the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article…

255 min read 9 Sep 2026

CPC: Complete Notes

About this subject ▶ Watch this part of the lecture (0:00) The subject covers the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, together with the Limitation Act: from how the Code began to how time can make a trespasser an owner. Whenever a tenant refuses to leave, a buyer wants his money back, or two brothers qu…

137 min read 16 Oct 2026

Code of Civil Procedure One Shot

The first Code of Civil Procedure was enacted in 1859 during British rule for courts outside Presidency towns. Revised codes were introduced in 1877 and 1882. The current CPC, 1908, consolidated earlier laws and has bee…

113 min read 9 Sep 2026

Constitution II One Shot

A child born in India before July 1, 1987, automatically acquired Indian citizenship regardless of their parents' nationality.

57 min read 9 Sep 2026

Constitutional Law II: Complete Notes

Constitutional Law II deals with civil liberties. It is studied in eight units, from the question of who is a citizen of India to how the Constitution enforces the rights it gives. These rights are at work in ordinary life: when a person speaks his mind online, prays in his own way, or is stopped b…

130 min read 16 Oct 2026

Labour Law - 1 One Shot

Before: Workers were treated like machines. Employers could hire and fire them easily. There were no protections for workers.

63 min read 9 Sep 2026

Relationship Between Constitutional Law and Administrative Law

Constitutional law and administrative law are closely connected. While administrative law focuses on the organization, powers, functions, and duties of administrative authorities, constitutional law addresses the genera…

7 min read 9 Sep 2026

Remedies against Administrative Action

Remedies against Administrative Action can be Constitutional, Statutory, or Equitable.

12 min read 9 Sep 2026

Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts

Statutory authority refers to the legal power derived directly from the legislature. When someone acts under statutory authority and causes harm to another, no legal action can be taken against them, as the act is not c…

4 min read 9 Sep 2026

The Connection Between Constitutional Law and Administrative Law

Constitutional law and administrative law are closely connected. While administrative law focuses on the organization, powers, functions, and duties of administrative authorities, constitutional law addresses the genera…

13 min read 9 Sep 2026

During the 1975 Emergency, a five-judge bench held by a 4:1 majority that once the enforcement of Article 21 was suspended by a Presidential order under Article 359(1), no person had locus standi to file a habeas corpus petition under Article 226, even against an illegal detention. Justice H. R. Khanna's lone dissent, which said that the right to life and liberty does not come from the Constitution alone, is celebrated as the moral high point of the judiciary. The judgment was later answered by the Forty-fourth Amendment (1978) and expressly overruled in K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).

The Supreme Court upheld the Patna High Court's view that a person in jail or in lawful police custody (other than preventive detention) cannot vote under Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Such a person is therefore not an 'elector' and cannot contest elections either. The case matters because Parliament reversed the ruling within about three months through the Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2013, which had retrospective effect. It is a key case on the criminalisation of politics and on Parliament's power to remove the basis of a judgment.

In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that the right to die with dignity is part of the right to life under Article 21. It made passive euthanasia legal subject to safeguards, kept active euthanasia illegal, and recognised the living will (advance medical directive) as legally enforceable. It matters because it carried Article 21 from the narrow approach of A. K. Gopalan all the way to dignity at the end of life.

In Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by a 3:2 majority, upheld the anti-defection law in the Tenth Schedule. It struck down only Paragraph 7, which barred courts completely, because that change needed ratification by the States and had not received it. The Court held that the Speaker acts as a tribunal when deciding disqualification, so the decision is open to limited judicial review. The case saved the anti-defection law and also made sure the Speaker's power is not absolute.

The Supreme Court held that the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, a statutory body created under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, is 'State' under Article 12. It held that 'other authorities' must be read broadly and not limited by the rule of ejusdem generis, so fundamental rights and writs apply against such bodies. The case started the wide reading of Article 12 that later courts built on.

A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the President's satisfaction under Article 356 is not absolute and is open to judicial review. The Court held that a government's majority must be tested on the floor of the Assembly, not at Raj Bhavan, and declared secularism and federalism to be basic features of the Constitution. The case put a clear brake on the misuse of President's Rule against State governments.

In Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court upheld the Constitution Seventeenth Amendment Act, 1964. It held that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights in Part III, and that a constitutional amendment is not 'law' under Article 13(2). The case matters because the separate opinions of Justice Hidayatullah and Justice Mudholkar first raised doubts about unlimited amending power, and Justice Mudholkar's idea of 'basic features' is treated as the seed of the basic structure doctrine.

First, let us understand the basic meaning. Article 13(2) of the Constitution says: the State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights, and any law that does so is void. Shankari Prasad Singh Deo vs. Union of India (1951) asked one sharp question: does the word "law" i…

In Zee Telefilms v. Union of India (2005), a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held, by a 3:2 majority, that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (B.C.C.I.) is not a 'State' under Article 12. So a writ petition under Article 32 is not maintainable against it. However, because B.C.C.I. performs public functions, High Courts can issue writs against it under Article 226. The case is a key part of the Article 12 line of cases that follows Pradeep Kumar Biswas.

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held, by a 3:2 majority, that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (B.C.C.I.) is not a 'State' under Article 12, so a writ petition under Article 32 is not maintainable against it. The Court also accepted that B.C.C.I. performs public functions, so High Courts can still issue writs against it under Article 226. The case is a key part of the Article 12 line of cases after Pradeep Kumar Biswas.