Download this is the notes of constitutional law semester fourth. and more Lecture notes Constitutional Law in PDF only on Docsity!
UNIT 4 RIGHT AGAINST EXPLOITATION (ARTICLE 23-24)
1-M. C. MEHTA V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 1996
2- BACHPAN BACHAO ANDOLAN VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS, 2011
RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION: ARTICLES 25-28 OF
THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS ... VS SRI LT SWAMIAR, 1954
Supreme Court of observed that are religion may not only lay down a code of ethical rules of its followers to accept it, it might prescribe ritual and observance ceremonies and mode of worship which are regarded as integral part of religion and these forms and observance might extended even to matter of food and dress. ARTICLE 25- Restriction- (I)Public Order (ii) Morality (iii) Health (Iv)Other Provisions of Part III All Persons Are Equally Entitled (i) profess (ii) practice (iii) propagate
Ismail Faruqui Vs Union of India, 1994
Supreme Court held at the state can in exercise of its sovereign power acquire places of worship like mosque, churches and temples etc which is independent of article 300-A of the Constitution if it is necessary for maintenance of law and order. such acquisition per se does not violate articles 25 and 26 of the constitution which is protected under article 25 and 26 is a religious practice which forms and essential and integral part of religion. A practice maybe a religious practice but not an essential part of religious practices. while offer of prayer or worship is a religious practice, it's offering at every location where such prayers can be offered would not be and essential religious practice.
S.R. BOMMAI VS UNION OF INDIA, 1994
The Supreme Court held at religious tolerance and equal treatment of all religious groups and protection of their life and property and place of worship are essential part of our constitution.
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI V. UNION OF INDIA ,
KESAVANANDA BHARATI V. STATE OF KERALA ,
SANTOSH KUMAR VS THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN
RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, 1994
The supreme court held at introduction of Sanskrit language as a subject in the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE)was not against secularism as it was the mother of all Aryan languages.
ARUNA ROY V. UNION OF INDIA, 2002
N. ADITHAYAN V. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
BIJOE EMMANUEL VS STATE OF KERALA, 1986
Supreme Court held at that that no person can be compelled to sing the national anthem if he has a "genuine conscious religious objection”. There is no legal obligation India for a citizen to sing the national anthem by standing up while the national anthem was being sung, the children have shown proper respect to the national Anthem and had not violated the fundamental duties laid down in the article 51 of the constitution.
LOUD SPEAKER (AZAAN)
MOULANA MUFTI SAYED MD. NOORUR REHMAN BARKATI & ORS.
VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 1988
CHURCH OF GOD (FULL GOSPEL) IN INDIA VS K.K.R. MC
WELFARE, 2000
The supreme court held that in the exercise of the right to religion freedom under article 25 and 26, no person can be allowed to create noise pollution or disturb the peace of others. The custom of religious prayer through the use of loudspeaker is not an essential element of any religion.
INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION VS THE STATE OF
KERALA, 2018(SABRIMALA CASE)
M.SIDDIQ. VS MAHANT SURESH DAS ON, 2019(AYODHYA CASE)
DR. NOORJEHAN SAFIA NIAZ AND 1 ANR VS STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA, 2016
The petition was file under article 226 in the in the High Court on the ground of gender discriminated and arbitrary denial of access to women in the sanctum of Haji Ali Dargah. It was absolutely duty of the state to ensure the safety and security of the human in the such places and right to access Into the Haji Ali Dargah is not denied to women.
REV. STAINISLAUS VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, 1977
The court of the it has been resembling that article 25(1) one guarantees freedom of conscience to every citizen and be merely followers of one particular religion and that in turn postulates
Madras High Court held that India is a secular country and merely because one religious group is leaving in a majority in particular area it cannot be reason for not allowing other religion religious festival or procession in other area.
JAVED VS STATE OF U.P. 2021
Allahabad High Court held at religion is an object to devotion and it cannot be tied to any particular worship system and it is good example are Akbar and Jodha Bai. Court observes that everyone's right to freedom under constitution sometime it's also happened that people does not convert to another religion due to fear but also due to humiliation they believe they will get respect in that religion.
MD IMRAN AHMAD VS UNION OF INDIA, 2023
Supreme Court said that religion is important in our country only when it is relevant in law otherwise for all purpose India is a secular country.
ANSHUMAN SINGH RATHORE & ORS V UNION & ORS. 2024
ANJUM KADARI VS UNION OF INDIA, 2024
The supreme court stayed Allahabad High Court decision and now the matter will be decided by Supreme court.
RIGHTS OF MINORITIES ARTICLE (29-30)
WHAT IS MEAN BY MINORITY-
CHAPTER 14- ARTICLE 292 TO 301 ORIGINALLY PROVIDES SPECIAL RIGHTS
MINORITIES
ARTICLE 29
IN RE: THE KERALA EDUCATION BILL, 1958.
T.M.A.PAI FOUNDATION V. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2002
The supreme court held that religious and linguistic minority are covered by the expression minority under article 30 of the constitution.
AHMEDABAD ST. XAVIERS COLLEGE V. STATE OF GUJARAT ,
The supreme court held that the spirit behind article 13(1) is the conscience of the nation that the minorities religious as well as linguistic are not prohibited from the minorities has been given protected under article 30 in order to preserve and strengthen the integrity and Unity of the country.
D. A. V. COLLEGE V. STATE OF PUNJAB, 1971
Court said that the right of minority to establish an administer educational institution of their choice includes the right to have a choice of medium of Instructions also and the university circular was directly infringing upon the rights of minorities to have instruction in Hindi or there as a language and therefore was violative of article 29(1) and 30(1).
RIGHT TO ADMINISTER AND ESTABLISH MINORITY
INSTITUTION
AHMEDABAD ST. XAVIERS COLLEGE V. STATE OF GUJARAT ,
(I) Right to choose it's managing. (II) choose its teachers (III) write not to be compared to refuse admission to student. (IV)right to use it properties and assets for the benefit of its own Institutions.
POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE MINORITY
INSTITUTION
SIDHAJBHAI SABHAI AND OTHERS V STATE OF BOMBAY
The Bombay government issued and order reserving sector seats to the Nominees of the government in the minority run training colleges. the order also provided that refusal to admit government nominated teachers would result in with holding recognition and stoppage of Grant in aid to such Institution. The court held at the order threating to with whole grant in aid and recognition of colleges violative article 30(1) as they were not imposed to make the institution as an effective vehicle education.
ST. XAVIERS COLLEGE V. STATE OF GUJARAT ,1974 important
Supreme Court held at these provisions abridges the right of minority to
administer. The court also emphasize that right to conferred on the linguistic
and religious minority NOT COMPLETE……..
THE MANAGING BOARD OF THE MILLI TALIMI ... VS THE STATE
OF BIHAR, 1984
Granting the application is a fundamental right or not? Supreme Court observed that refusal to grant the application on purely on the illusionary grounds without Recommendation of the education commission and the university authorities
Supreme Court held at the protection granted to minority education institution to admit students of their charge is subject to reasonable restriction.
Surendra Chandra Das V. State of West Bengal ,
Supreme Court Held At Fundamental Rights Of The Minority Under Article 30 Of The
Constitution Cannot Be Waived.
MD. RAFIQUE VS MANAGING COMMITTEE, CONTAI RAHAMANIA,
West Bengal Madrasa Service Commission Act 2008 watch challenge Court Up held the validity of West Bengal Madrasa Service Commission Act 2008 observing that the there is no absolute and unqualified rights.
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE V. UNION OF INDIA, 2020
Supreme Court held that NEET for the graduate and PG program in medical and Dental courses in India and the court state that prescribing a uniform examination of NEET for admission in dental and Medical College did not wallet the rights of unaided minorities institution under article 19 (1)(g),30 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution.
EXEMPTION OF MINORITY FROM ARTICLE 15 (5)
ASHOKA KUMAR THAKUR VS UNION OF INDIA, 2008
NATIONAL COMMISSION OF MINORITY EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTION,
JAMIA TEACHER ASSOCIATION VS VICE CHANCELLOR JMI (2011)
Justice MSA Siddique observe that Jamia has always be the minority institution we have no Hesitation in saying that Jamia was found by Muslim for the benefits of Muslim and it never lost it its identity as a Muslim minority educational institution. Jamia was established by a Muslim for the Muslims do non-Muslims could be admitted for the court observe that it was established for the purpose of Muslim institution entirely into control of Muslim and free from external control. Section 11(5) confers minority status to the Jamia (NCMEI)
MILLI AL-AMEEN COLLEGE V. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL,
Kolkata High Court held at minority commission does not have any original jurisdiction to declare the status of any educational institution are being humanity institution or otherwise.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS PRINCIPAL ABHAY NANDAN
INTER COLLEGE, 2021
Supreme Court held at there is no difference between minority and non-minority aided Institution and that right there right to get aid from the government is not fundamental right.
DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA VS BIYANI SHIKSHAN SAMITI ,
Right to establish and educational institution can be regulated to ensure the maintenance of the proper academic standard atmosphere and infrastructure and the prevention of maladministration.
THE STATE OF GUJARAT VS H B KAPADIA EDUCATION TRUST,
Supreme Court observe that if an employee is continued in service by the management of any registered minority security School reviving Grant in aid then such School would not be entitled to receive any Grant in respect of the expenditure incurred from employing.
ICON EDUCATION SOCIETY VS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Supreme Court held at minority institution cannot claim complete immunity from the exercise undertaken by the admission and free regulatory committee by Claiming protection under article 30(1)
ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS VS.NARESH
AGARWAL,
Justice Chandrachud say that article 30 does not mandate that the administration has to be by the minority itself what article 30 contemplate and recognises is the right mainly the right to of choice the discretion given to the minority to administer in a manner which they demand appropriate.
