Polity – Hard Level – GK Questions

Mandamus compels performance of: (a) Statutory duty (imposed by law), (b) Ministerial duty (no discretion), (c) Public duty. Cannot compel: (a) Discretionary duty (court cannot dictate how discretion exercised, only that it be exercised fairly), (b) Private contracts, (c) Internal legislative proceedings. Respects separation of powers while ensuring accountability.

Certiorari grounds: (a) Lack/excess of jurisdiction, (b) Error of law apparent on face of record (not re-appreciation of evidence), (c) Violation of natural justice (audi alteram partem, nemo judex in causa sua), (d) Fraud/collusion. Issued by higher court to quash order of lower court/tribunal. Ensures judicial/quasi-judicial bodies act within legal bounds.

Though Article 32 is a Fundamental Right, SC exercises discretion: may refuse writ if (a) adequate alternative remedy exists (e.g., statutory appeal), (b) petition is frivolous/mala fide, (c) suppression of facts, (d) delay/laches. However, for grave FR violations or where alternative remedy is illusory, SC entertains petition. Balances access to justice with judicial economy.

Article 359(1A), inserted by 44th Amendment (1978): Presidential order suspending FR enforcement cannot apply to Articles 20 (protection in conviction: no ex post facto law, no double jeopardy, no self-incrimination) and 21 (life and personal liberty). These core rights remain enforceable even during Emergency, protecting citizens from executive excesses.

Traditional rule required personal injury (locus standi). However, Supreme Court relaxed this through Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in S.P. Gupta case (1981): Any public-spirited person can file petition for enforcement of rights of disadvantaged groups who cannot approach court themselves. Democratized access to justice while preventing frivolous litigation through judicial safeguards.

Key distinction: (a) Prohibition is PREVENTIVE - issued while proceedings are pending, before order, to prevent lower court/tribunal from exceeding jurisdiction, (b) Certiorari is CURATIVE - issued after order is passed, to quash order made without/ excess of jurisdiction. Both available under Articles 32 & 226 against judicial/quasi-judicial bodies.

Indian constitutional amendment framework: (a) Parliament has wide power to amend Constitution under Article 368 (including Fundamental Rights), (b) But Kesavananda Bharati (1973) limits this power: cannot alter basic structure, (c) Supreme Court is final arbiter of what constitutes basic structure, (d) Balance enables constitutional evolution while protecting core democratic values. Unique model blending flexibility with permanence.

Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and subsequent cases: Parliament's amending power under Article 368 is limited by basic structure doctrine. Basic structure includes: supremacy of Constitution, republican/democratic form, secularism, federalism, separation of powers, judicial review, rule of law, free/fair elections, individual dignity. Ensures Constitution's core identity survives political changes.

General principle: Constitutional amendments operate prospectively unless text expressly provides retrospective effect. Cannot validate actions that were unconstitutional when performed (ex post facto validation limited). However, amendments can change law for future cases and sometimes cure procedural defects. Balance between legal certainty and constitutional adaptability.

SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994): Held federalism is basic structure; State governments have constitutional status; President's Rule under Article 356 subject to judicial review; floor test is primary method to test majority; State Assembly dissolution not automatic. Protects States from arbitrary Union interference while preserving Union's emergency powers for genuine breakdowns.

Kesavananda Bharati (1973) established: (a) Parliament has wide amending power under Article 368, (b) But cannot destroy/alter basic structure of Constitution, (c) Supreme Court is final arbiter of what constitutes basic structure. This balances: parliamentary democracy (elected representatives amend Constitution) with constitutional supremacy (core values protected from transient majorities). Unique Indian model.

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015): 4:1 majority struck down 99th Amendment and NJAC Act. Held: (a) Collegium system (judges appointing judges) is part of basic structure, (b) Executive participation in appointments threatens judicial independence, (c) Primacy of judiciary in appointments essential for separation of powers. Controversial judgment; debate on reform continues.

Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): 6:5 majority held: (a) Fundamental Rights are 'transcendental and immutable', (b) Parliament cannot amend Part III, (c) Article 368 only prescribes procedure, not power. Led to 24th Amendment (1971) affirming amending power. Kesavananda (1973) later moderated: Parliament can amend FRs but not destroy basic structure.

Article 368(2) proviso: Certain provisions amendable by simple majority (not special majority): (a) Admission/formation of States (Articles 2-3), (b) Citizenship (Part II), (c) Fifth/Sixth Schedule administration, (d) Legislative Councils creation/abolition (Article 169), (e) Salaries/allowances of constitutional functionaries. These are 'constitutional but not under Article 368' amendments.

Supreme Court has recognized as basic structure: supremacy of Constitution, republican/democratic form, secularism, federalism, separation of powers, judicial review, rule of law, free/fair elections, parliamentary system, limited amending power, balance between FRs and DPSP, individual dignity. Right to Property was removed from FRs by 44th Amendment; now legal right under Article 300A, not basic structure.

Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): SC held Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights (Part III). 24th Amendment (1971) added clause to Article 13 clarifying 'law' does not include constitutional amendment under Article 368, and added clause to Article 368 affirming Parliament's amending power including FRs. Set stage for Kesavananda Bharati compromise.

Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980): SC struck down parts of 42nd Amendment that sought to exclude judicial review of constitutional amendments. Held: judicial review is part of basic structure; Parliament cannot destroy it. Also held balance between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles (Part IV) is basic structure. Reinforced Kesavananda doctrine.

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): 13-judge bench held Parliament can amend any part of Constitution but cannot alter its 'basic structure'. Basic features include: supremacy of Constitution, republican/democratic form, secularism, federalism, separation of powers, judicial review, rule of law, individual dignity. Landmark judgment balancing parliamentary sovereignty with constitutional supremacy.

Article 368(2) proviso: Amendments affecting federal structure require ratification by legislatures of not less than half of States (by simple majority). Protects States' interests by ensuring Union cannot unilaterally alter federal balance. Examples: 7th Amendment (State reorganisation), 73rd/74th Amendments (local government).

Emergency provisions reflect constitutional balance: (a) Enable strong Union response to existential threats (war, financial collapse, State breakdown), (b) But include safeguards: written Cabinet advice, Parliamentary approval, judicial review (SR Bommai), non-suspendable rights (Articles 20-21), time limits. Designed for temporary crisis management, not permanent authoritarianism. 44th Amendment strengthened this balance post-1975 experience.