Category: Uncategorized

Gender equality is deeply rooted in the Indian Constitution through Articles 14, 15, and 16, but achieving it requires ongoing efforts through laws, court rulings, and societal change. 📚 Introduction India’s Constitution is a progressive and rights-based document, and one of its most powerful commitments is to gender equality. From equal protection under law to non-discrimination, the Constitution promises a society where men, women, and all genders can enjoy equal rights and opportunities. But how far have we come in turning this constitutional promise into reality? 📜 Key Constitutional Provisions Article 14 – Right to Equality Guarantees equality before law and equal protection of the laws to all persons. Article 15 – Prohibition of Discrimination Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. 🔸 Article 15(3) allows the state to make special provisions for women and children, enabling affirmative action. Article 16 – Equality in Public Employment Provides equal opportunity in public jobs, regardless of gender. Directive Principles (Articles 39, 42, 46)– Guide the state to ensure equal pay, maternity benefits, and promotion of women’s welfare. 🧑‍⚖️ Landmark Supreme Court Cases on Gender Equality Air India v. Nargesh Meerza (1981)– Struck down service rules that forced air hostesses to retire at 35 or upon marriage/pregnancy. Held to be discriminatory and unconstitutional. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)– Laid down guidelines against sexual harassment at the workplace, citing Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)– Decriminalized adultery, declaring it discriminatory and violative of women’s dignity and autonomy. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018)– Allowed entry of women into the Sabarimala temple, holding that religious practices cannot override constitutional rights. Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2008)– Struck down laws that barred women from working in bars, saying protective discrimination cannot become paternalism. ⚖️ Special Laws Advancing Gender Equality Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 These laws, backed by constitutional values, safeguard women’s rights in public and private spheres. 👩‍⚖️ Beyond the Binary: Inclusion of Other Genders In NALSA v. Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court recognized transgender persons as the “third gender”, extending constitutional protections under Articles 14, 15, and 21 to all gender identities. “The Constitution must be interpreted in a manner that removes gender inequality in all its forms.” 📊 Challenges That Persist Gender pay gap and underrepresentation in leadership roles Societal norms and patriarchy limiting women’s choices Implementation gaps in legal protections Gender-based violence, online and offline Lack of representation of LGBTQ+ persons in policy-making 🌈 Role of the Judiciary The Indian judiciary has played a critical role in interpreting gender equality not just as formal sameness, but as substantive justice. Courts have increasingly emphasized dignity, choice, and bodily autonomy as essential aspects of gender justice. 🧩 Conclusion While the Indian Constitution guarantees gender equality, the journey from legal rights to lived reality is ongoing. Landmark judgments and progressive laws are crucial steps, but lasting change needs social reform, education, and collective action. In the words of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud: “The Constitution empowers, but it is society that must transform.”

⚖️ Landmark Case: Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 📝 Summary:This case reinforced transparency in democracy by mandating that election candidates disclose their criminal records, assets, and liabilities, as part of the right to information. 📚 Background The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), an NGO working for electoral reform, filed a PIL demanding that voters should know about the background of candidates contesting elections. At the time, there was no mandatory disclosure of criminal cases, assets, or education. 🧑‍⚖️ Supreme Court Verdict The Court ruled decisively in favor of transparency. Right to know = Fundamental RightThe right to information about public figures is part of freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)). Mandatory disclosures before electionsCandidates must file affidavits disclosing: Criminal antecedents (convictions & pending cases) Assets and liabilities Educational qualifications Public has a right to make informed choicesVoters cannot be kept in the dark—democracy depends on awareness. 🧠 Significance Pioneered electoral transparency in India. Boosted efforts to clean up politics. Supported later reforms like NOTA and political funding disclosures.

🏛️ Landmark Case: Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) 📚 Background Just a year after India adopted its Constitution, the nation faced a fundamental question: Can Parliament amend the Constitution to limit or alter fundamental rights? This issue came up when the Indian government passed the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951, which aimed to curb landowners’ rights and introduce reservations in education. Shankari Prasad, a landholder, challenged the amendment. He argued that Parliament could not amend Part III(Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution since these rights are guaranteed and protected. ⚖️ The Core Issue The case centered on a crucial legal question: Does the term “law” in Article 13(2) include constitutional amendments made under Article 368? If yes, then any amendment that violates fundamental rights would be unconstitutional. If not, Parliament would have the power to amend any part of the Constitution—including fundamental rights. 🧑‍⚖️ Supreme Court Verdict The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the Union of India, stating that: Amendments are not “law” under Article 13The Court held that “law” in Article 13 refers to ordinary legislation, not constitutional amendments. So, Article 368 gives Parliament the authority to amend any part of the Constitution—including fundamental rights. Parliament’s power is supreme under Article 368The judgment emphasized that Article 368 provides a special procedure for amending the Constitution, and this procedure is outside the scope of Article 13. 📌 Why This Case Mattered This was the first case where the validity of a constitutional amendment was challenged. The judgment set a pro-Parliament precedent, giving the legislature wide powers to reshape the Constitution—even to limit fundamental rights. However, it also sparked future legal debates and challenges, as critics argued this gave too much power to Parliament without enough checks and balances. 🔁 Later Developments In Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Court reversed this view, holding that fundamental rights cannot be amended. But this was again overturned by the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), where the Basic Structure Doctrine was introduced—allowing amendments but not at the cost of the Constitution’s core principles. So, while Shankari Prasad v. Union of India opened the door for amendments, later judgments refined and balanced Parliament’s powers with constitutional integrity. 🧠 Conclusion The Shankari Prasad case laid the foundation for India’s amendment process and triggered one of the longest and most profound legal debates in Indian constitutional history. It’s a landmark for understanding how democratic powers must balance change with protection of rights—a conversation that continues even today.

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) – Elections, Equality & the Basic Structure Summary:This case highlighted the importance of free and fair elections in a democracy and reaffirmed that even constitutional amendments cannot override the basic structure of the Constitution. Background: The case arose from one of the most politically charged moments in Indian history. In 1971, Indira Gandhi won a sweeping majority in the Lok Sabha elections. Her opponent in the Rae Bareli constituency, Raj Narain, challenged her victory, alleging electoral malpractices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In 1975, the Allahabad High Court found Indira Gandhi guilty of electoral misconduct and declared her election void. This verdict disqualified her from holding office and triggered a political crisis. Just days later, Indira Gandhi declared a state of Emergency in India. During this period, Parliament passed the 39th Constitutional Amendment, inserting Article 329A, which: Declared that elections of the Prime Minister and Speaker could not be questioned in any court. Retrospectively validated Indira Gandhi’s election, overruling the High Court judgment. This amendment was directly challenged before the Supreme Court. Legal Issues Raised: Can Parliament pass a constitutional amendment that places certain elections beyond judicial scrutiny? Does such an amendment violate the basic structure of the Constitution? Is the right to free and fair elections part of the Constitution’s core principles? Supreme Court’s Key Observations: Violation of Basic Structure: The Court struck down Clause 4 of Article 329A, stating that placing the Prime Minister’s election beyond judicial review violated the basic structure of the Constitution. Free and Fair Elections as a Constitutional Guarantee: The Court ruled that free and fair elections are an essential feature of democracy and part of the basic structure. Any law or amendment that damages this principle is unconstitutional. Limitation on Parliament’s Amending Power: Although Parliament has wide powers under Article 368, it cannot destroy essential constitutional values, including equality, rule of law, and judicial review. Retrospective Validation Is Unjust: The amendment, made solely to protect one individual’s seat of power, was seen as a misuse of constitutional authority. Impact of the Judgment: This case stands as a strong reminder that no one—not even the Prime Minister—is above the Constitution. It reinforced the judiciary’s role as the guardian of democratic values, and further cemented the Basic Structure Doctrineestablished in Kesavananda Bharati. The judgment also deepened public understanding of constitutional supremacy and set a precedent that constitutional amendments are not immune from judicial review if they breach the core values of the Constitution.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – Expanding the Meaning of Personal Liberty Summary:This case transformed the interpretation of Article 21, holding that personal liberty is not just physical freedom but includes a wide range of rights—and any procedure restricting it must be fair, just, and reasonable. Background: Maneka Gandhi, a journalist and the daughter-in-law of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, was issued a passport. Shortly after, the government ordered her to surrender it without giving any reason, under the Passport Act, 1967. When she asked for an explanation, it was denied “in public interest.” Maneka Gandhi filed a writ petition under Article 32, claiming this action violated her Fundamental Rights. Legal Issues Raised: Can the government restrict a citizen’s right to travel without giving proper reasons or following due process? What is the true scope of Article 21—the right to life and personal liberty? Can laws under Article 21 be arbitrary, or must they follow fair procedure? Key Observations by the Supreme Court: Redefined Article 21: The Court declared that the term “procedure established by law” in Article 21 cannot be arbitrary. It must be just, fair, and reasonable, aligning with the principles of natural justice. Link Between Fundamental Rights: The judgment emphasized that Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 19 (Freedoms), and 21 are not isolated. They are interlinked and must be read together. Right to Travel Abroad: The right to travel is part of the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21. Any restriction on it must meet strict constitutional standards. Procedural Fairness is Mandatory: Simply having a law isn’t enough. The process it lays down must protect the individual’s dignity and fairness. Impact of the Judgment: Broadened the scope of Article 21, influencing countless future cases involving privacy, dignity, environment, and more. Shifted Indian constitutional law closer to due process, as practiced in the United States. Made arbitrary executive actions more challengeable in court.

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – The Case That Drew the Line for Parliament’s Power 🟠 Summary:This landmark judgment laid the foundation of the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot change its core principles such as democracy, rule of law, and fundamental rights. 📖 Background of the Case: In the early 1970s, the Indian government introduced land reform laws to promote social and economic justice by redistributing land. These reforms often came into conflict with the right to property. Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a Hindu religious mutt in Kerala, challenged these laws when the state tried to take over the mutt’s land under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Initially a property rights case, it soon became a constitutional crisis: Could Parliament make changes to the Constitution that undermine individual freedoms? ⚖️ Key Legal Questions: Does Parliament have unlimited power to amend the Constitution under Article 368? Can Parliament amend or take away fundamental rights like the right to property, equality, or liberty? Is there any part of the Constitution that is beyond the reach of Parliament’s amendment power? 🧠 Court’s Observation & Verdict: A 13-judge bench, the largest in Indian judicial history, heard the case. In a close 7-6 majority, the Court ruled: Yes, Parliament can amend the Constitution. But it cannot destroy or alter its ‘basic structure’. This means that while laws can change with time, the fundamental identity of the Constitution must remain intact. The Court didn’t give an exhaustive list of what constitutes the “basic structure,” but it identified essential features like Supremacy of the Constitution, Rule of law and Separation of powers.  📌 Why This Case Matters: It saved the Constitution from being rewritten at will by those in power. It created a balance between amendability and stability. It reinforced the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution. It later helped courts strike down unconstitutional amendments, such as those affecting elections or weakening courts. 📚 Legacy: Even decades later, the Kesavananda Bharati judgment remains the cornerstone of constitutional law in India. It has been cited in numerous rulings and continues to act as a shield against authoritarian misuse of power.

Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) – Landmark Judgment on Involuntary Administration of Scientific Tests This case addresses the validity of involuntary scientific techniques such as narcoanalysis, polygraph examinations, and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) tests, questioning their impact on individual rights in criminal investigations. Summary:The Supreme Court ruled that the involuntary use of narcoanalysis, polygraph tests, and BEAP tests violates the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. It emphasized the need to protect individual liberties during criminal investigations while balancing the interests of justice. Key Observations: Violation of Self-Incrimination Rights: The Court affirmed that forced administration of these scientific techniques violates Article 20(3), which protects individuals from self-incrimination during investigations. Voluntary Administration with Safeguards: While voluntary tests are allowed, they must be accompanied by clear consent and safeguards. Involuntary tests are inadmissible as evidence. Testimonial Nature of Evidence: Results from these techniques are treated as personal testimony and not material evidence, meaning they are inadmissible unless voluntarily provided. Infringement on Personal Liberty: The compulsory administration of these tests violates the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21, as it involves an unjustified intrusion into mental privacy. International Human Rights Concerns: The Court noted that forced use of these tests could be seen as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment under international human rights norms. NHRC Guidelines: The National Human Rights Commission guidelines must be followed rigorously, ensuring informed consent, legal counsel, and appropriate safeguards. Conclusion:This case reinforces that personal liberty and constitutional rights must be upheld in the face of criminal investigations, setting critical limits on the use of involuntary scientific techniques.

The Rajasthan Judicial Services (RJS) Examination for 2025 is a comprehensive multi-stage recruitment process, consisting of a Preliminary Examination, a Main Examination, and an Interview. Below is a clear and detailed explanation of each stage, followed by the syllabus to help candidates understand the requirements. 1. Examination Stages The recruitment process for the position of Civil Judge is structured into three major stages: Preliminary Examination (Objective Type) Main Examination (Subjective Type) Interview (Viva-Voce) Important Notes: The marks obtained in the Preliminary Examination will not be counted for the final merit. 15 times the vacancies (category-wise) will be shortlisted from the Preliminary Examination to appear for the Main Examination. However, in case of a tie on the last cut-off, all candidates with the same marks will be admitted. Candidates must secure a minimum percentage in the Preliminary Examination to qualify for the Main Examination: SC/ST/PWD/Ex-servicemen: 40% in Prelims. Other categories: 45% in Prelims. 2. Preliminary Examination The Preliminary Examination is a 2-hour objective type paper with 100 questions, totaling 100 marks. The examination tests candidates on both Law and Language Proficiency (English and Hindi). There is no negative marking for wrong answers. Weightage:  70% weightage will be given to the subjects prescribed in syllabus for Law Paper-I and Law Paper-ll, prescribed in the Main Examination syllabus. 30% of the questions assess proficiency in Hindi and English language. The Preliminary Exam syllabus includes: Law: Same as the syllabus for Law Paper-I and Law Paper-II in the Main Examination. English Proficiency: Tenses Articles and Determiners Phrasal Verbs and Idioms Active & Passive Voice Co-ordination & Subordination Direct & Indirect Speech Modals Expressing Various Concepts, including – (Obligation, Request, Permission, Prohibition, Intention, Condition, Probability, Possibility, Purpose, Reason, Companions, Contrast) Antonyms and Synonyms. Hindi Proficiency: शब्द रचना: संधि एवं संधि विच्छेद, समास, उपसर्ग, प्रत्यय शब्द प्रकार:(क) तत्सम, अर्धतत्सम, तद्भव, देशज, विदेशज(ख) संज्ञा, सर्वनाम, विशेषण, क्रिया, अव्यय (क्रिया विशेषण, संबंध सूचक, विस्मयादिबोधक, निपात) शब्द ज्ञान: पर्यायवाची, विलोम, शब्द युग्मों का अर्थ भेद, वाक्यांश के लिए सार्थक शब्द, समश्रुत भिन्नार्थक शब्द, समानार्थी शब्दों का विवेक, उपयुक्त शब्द चयन, संबंधवाची शब्दावली शब्द शुद्धि व्याकरणिक कोटियाँ: कारक, लिंग, वचन, पुरुष, काल, विधि (Mood), पक्ष (Aspect), वाच्य (Voice) वाक्य रचना, वाक्य शुद्धि, विराम चिह्नों का प्रयोग मुहावरे/लोकोक्तियाँ पारिभाषिक शब्दावली: प्रशासनिक, विधिक (विशेषतः) 3. Main Examination The Main Examination is subjective and consists of three papers: Law Paper-I Law Paper-II Language Paper (Hindi and English Essays) LAW                         Law Paper-I (Civil Law) 100 Marks 3 hours LAW                           Law Paper-II (Criminal Law) 100   Marks 3 hours LANGUAGE Paper-I (Hindi Essay) 50 Marks     2 hours LANGUAGE Paper-II (English Essay) 50 Marks 2 hours Interview Personal Interview 35 Marks Syllabus for Law Paper-I: This paper covers Civil Law subjects, including: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 Indian Contract Act, 1872 The Constitution of India Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Limitation Act, 1963 Specific Relief Act, 1963 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 The Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 The Interpretation of Statutes Hindu Laws: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956; Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 Rajasthan Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1961 Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 Partnership Act, 1932 Sale of Goods Act, 1930 The Registration Act, 1908 Mohammedan Law (Relating to Marriage, Divorce, Succession, Maintenance & Adoption) Order/Judgment Writing Syllabus for Law Paper-II: This paper focuses on Criminal Law and Procedural Law: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 The Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 The Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita) Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Indian Evidence Act, 1872  The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 The Information Technology Act, 2000 Framing of Charge and Judgment Writing Syllabus for Language Paper: The Language Paper consists of two sections: Hindi Essay: Candidates will write an essay in Hindi. English Essay: Candidates will write an essay in English. 4. Interview (Viva-Voce) The Interview assesses candidates on their personality, general knowledge, current affairs, and suitability for the judicial service. Candidates will also be evaluated on their proficiency in Rajasthani dialects and their knowledge of social customs of Rajasthan. The interview is intended to gauge the candidate’s overall personality and their understanding of societal issues, including contemporary challenges. 5. Final Merit List The final merit list is prepared based on the aggregate marks from the Main Examination and the Interview. In case of a tie in aggregate marks, the following tie-breaking procedure will be followed: Higher marks in Interview will be the deciding factor. Age: If the Interview marks are also tied, preference will be given to the older candidate. Minimum Marks for Appointment: SC/ST/PWD candidates: Minimum 35% in Written Exam + Interview. Ex-servicemen candidates: Minimum 35% in Written Exam + Interview. Other candidates: Minimum 40% in Written Exam + Interview. Summary of Important Points: Preliminary Examination: Objective-type paper on Law (70%) and Language Proficiency (30%). Main Examination: Subjective papers on Law (Civil and Criminal) and Language (Hindi & English essays). Interview: Personality, general knowledge, and proficiency in Rajasthani dialects. Final Selection: Based on the aggregate marks in the Main Examination and Interview. You can now start your preparation for Judicial Services with us. For more details ask here : https://wa.me/message/KQFV6VUK5AIWB1 Our YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/@theoryofabrogation?si=scV-M5gisXmJmZCf

Citation AIR 1964 SC 964 Court Supreme Court of India Date of Judgment 18 February 1964 Bench Hon’ble Justice K. Subba Rao, Hon’ble Justice J.C. Shah Facts of the Case The case involved a dispute between the Union of India and Maddala Thathiah over the specific performance of a contract concerning the transportation of goods by the Indian Railways. Maddala Thathiah claimed that the railway authorities failed to fulfill their contractual obligations, causing significant losses to him. The Union of India argued that the non-performance was due to unforeseen circumstances beyond their control, such as logistical and operational constraints. Maddala Thathiah sought compensation for the breach. Legal Issues Whether the Union of India was liable for non-performance of the contract under force majeure conditions. Whether Maddala Thathiah was entitled to compensation for the alleged breach of contract. Reasoning of the Court Force Majeure and Section 56 The court examined the applicability of Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which excuses performance of a contract when it becomes impossible due to unforeseen events. Obligation of the Parties The court held that the Union of India failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the alleged logistical issues amounted to a force majeure event. Specific Performance and Compensation The court emphasized that when a public authority fails to fulfill its contractual obligations without valid justification, it can be held liable for damages. Judgment The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Maddala Thathiah, holding that the Union of India was liable for breach of contract. The court awarded compensation to Maddala Thathiah for the losses incurred due to non-performance. Significance of the Case Accountability of Public Authorities The case reinforced the principle that public authorities, including the Indian Railways, are bound by their contractual obligations and cannot escape liability without valid grounds. Force Majeure Interpretation It clarified the scope of force majeure, ensuring that it cannot be invoked without substantial evidence of unforeseen events. Protection of Private Parties The judgment emphasized the importance of protecting private parties in contracts involving public entities. Conclusion The case of Union of India v. Maddala Thathiah is a landmark decision that underscores the accountability of public authorities in fulfilling contractual obligations. It provides clarity on the application of force majeure and ensures fairness in disputes involving government entities.