Constitutional Law Society, NLU-Jodhpur

The Constitutional Law Society conducted an informal discussion on *Elections and Judicial Interventions: Party Symbols, Election Funding and Powers of the Presiding Officer* on 14th February, 2024.

The participants discussed the nuances of the electoral bonds scheme, the recent developments in Chandigarh, the party symbol conflicts and the broader issue of media coverage and portrayal and its effect on the politics of the day.

We look forward to organizing and facilitating more such inquisitive discussions!

The Constitution Bench of the SC of India comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant by its judgement dated 11.12.2023 upheld the Union Government's abrogation of Art. 370 which repealed the special status of J&K in 2019.

In furtherance of our aim to initiate and encourage discourse on issues of constitutional law & policy, the Constitutional Law Society commemorated the occasion of the 74th Constitution Day (November 26, 2023) by organising an informal discussion titled "Standing the Test of Time: The Indian Constitution at 74."

The discussion was attended by our faculty advisor, Asst. Prof. Sayantani Bagchi, our founding Convenor Swapnil Tripathi, other alumni including Yashwanth J. Selvam and Prakhar Raghuvanshi. It provided a valuable opportunity to explore the resilient nature of the Indian Constitution and how it has withstood turbulent and peaceful times alike. The event was a huge success with a range of issues including opposition rights, voting rights and reservations in India being critically analysed from a constitutional perspective.

The Constitutional Law Society wishes all citizens of the country a very Happy 74th Constitutional Day!

We are thrilled to announce the panelists of the National Seminar on Constitutionalism in Contemporary Times hosted by the Constitutional Law Society [“CLS”] and the Comparative Constitutional Law & Administrative Law Journal [“CALJ”] of the National Law University, Jodhpur, from September 23-24, 2023. This event promises to be the pinnacle of legal discourse, gathering renowned experts in the field of constitutional law.

The seminar offers a one-of-a-kind opportunity for attendees to expand their knowledge of the current challenges to and trends in constitutionalism, and engage in meaningful and edifying discussions with the speakers.

The Constitutional Law Society, National Law University, Jodhpur brings to you, our new podcast titled "Petitioner Stories", in which petitioners of some of the landmark cases that have impacted our country's fundamental rights regime share their inspiring stories. In this podcast series, we will aim to bring the inspiring stories of these petitioners to our listeners in an informative and engaging manner

In our very first episode, Ms Anuradha Bhasin talks to us about the landmark case of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, its background and its relevance in the current circumstances. In this landmark judgement , the Supreme Court ruled that the indefinite suspension of internet services by the government was a violation of people's fundamental rights. Brace yourselves as you hear this inspiring from the petitioner herself.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/4cMULmKRhK61lQxGVv6dSV?si=cRw1MCFDTaaO_YTfxLz16Q&utm_source=whatsapp

Samvidhan Sabke Liye

"For the success of democracy one must train himself in the art of self-discipline. In democracies one should care less for himself and more for others. There cannot be any divided loyalty. All loyalties must exclusively be centred round the State. If in a democracy, you create rival loyalties, or you create a system in which any individual or group, instead of suppressing his extravagance, cares nought for larger or other interests, then democracy is doomed."

- Govind Ballabh Pant

Q3. Which Government of India Act has the most influence on the current constitution of India?

a. Government of India Act, 1935
b. Pits India Act, 1784
c. Government of India Act, 1919
d. Indian Constitution Act, 1909

Samvidhan Sabke Liye

Q2. The Indian Parliament may rename a State or redefine it's boundaries by:

a. Simple majority
b. Absolute majority
c. 2/3rd majority of members voting
d. 2/3rd majority of members voting and absolute majority of its total membership

Samvidhan Sabke Liye

Q1. From one High court to another High court, who has the authority to transfer judges?

a. President
b. Prime Minister
c. Law Minister of India
d. Chief Justice of India

Samvidhan Sabke Liye

Q3. Who among the following was the chairman of Constituent Assembly’s Committee on the Rules of Procedure?

A. Rajendra Prasad
B. Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
C. K.M. Munshi
D. T. T. Krishnamachari

Samvidhan Sabke Liye

Q2. What were the provisions enacted on 26 November 1949?

A. Preamble
B. Fundamental Rights
C. Citizenship
D. Directive Principles of State Policy

Samvidhan Sabke Liye

Q1. Who amongst the following became the first speaker of the Constituent Assembly?

A. H.C. Mukherjee
B. G.V. Mavlankar
C. V.T. Krishnamachari
D. Kailashnath Katju

Samvidhan Sabke Liye

“It is our misfortune that our rights have not been fully recognized, but if we are here by right, then no matter whether they be Rulers or Princes, or Heirs-apparent, whether they are nominated (by these rulers) or self-nominated or whether they are Prime Ministers, they are all equal. They are, in no way backward, but are progressive, and they also include men of action. All have come here without any distinction of caste or creed and their rights should be equal.”

- Hiralal Shastri

Samvidhan Sabke Liye

Q3. How many members signed the official copy of the constitution?

1. 200
2. 284
3. 288
4. 185

Q2. Which portfolio was handled by Dr. Ambedkar in the Viceroy’s Council from 1942 to 1946?

1. Labor
2. Law
3. Education
4. Finance

Samvidhan Sabke Liye

Q. The section on Citizenship in the Indian Constitution draws inspiration from which country’s constitution?

1. UK
2. France
3. Canada
4. USA

Samvidhan Sabke Liye

Q. How many sessions were held by the constituent assembly before adopting the constitution of India?

1. 11 sessions
2. 7 sessions
3. 12 sessions
3. 17 sessions

Samvidhan Sabke Liye

Q. How many countries constitution was studied by BR Ambedkar before making the constitution of India?

1. 100 countries
2. 60 countries
3. 10 countries
4. 7 countries

Samvidhan Sabke Liye

Q. From which country was the judicial review adopted?

1. Australia
2. United States
3. Japan
4. Canada

Samvidhan Sabke Liye

"With fellow feeling, we must all join together and help to see our country free as early as possible. None of us want to be a slave to a third person or a second person. Everyone wants to be free. Every individual of this country must realise that he is the administrator of the country. He must be made to realise, he must be made to understand that he is the real ruler of this country."

-S. Nagappa

Samvidhan Sabke Liye

"It is necessary, therefore, that we should proclaim to the world our determination to carry out our undertaking and frame a constitution for an Independent Sovereign Republic a Republic in which the ultimate power is vested in the people and all power and authority are derived from the people."

-Dr. P. K. Sen

The Supreme Court delivered a split decision on a group of petitions challenging Karnataka High Court's ban on Muslim female students wearing the hijab in educational institutions. The questions included whether college administration has the authority to determine students' uniforms and whether restrictions on the wearing of the hijab violate Article 25 of the Constitution; what is the ambit and scope of freedom of conscience and religion under Article 25; and what is the ambit and scope of fundamental religious practices under Article 25. Justice Hemant Gupta rejected the appeals against the Karnataka High Court's ruling that the hijab is not an integral practice of Islam, allowing the prohibition on wearing the headscarf at educational institutions inside the state. On the other hand, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia reversed the ruling of the Karnataka High Court and ruled that the whole notion of necessary religious practice was irrelevant to the issue.

[Aishat Shifa v. The State of Karnataka & Ors.]

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/hijab-ban-supreme-court-split-verdict-karnataka-religion-fundamental-right-article-25-211510

Supreme Court Passes Split Verdict In Hijab Case; Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia Sets Aside Karnataka HC Judgment The Supreme Court today passed a split verdict on a batch of appeals challenging restriction on Muslim girl students wearing Hijab in educational institutions in Karnataka.Justice Hemant Gupta...

The Supreme Court recommended that the Union Government enact a law on exhumation. According to Article 21 of the Constitution, every individual has the right to dignity and fair treatment, regardless of whether he is alive or dead. In accordance with the tradition, culture, and religion which the dead person professed, his body deserves the respect and dignity that he would have deserved if he had been alive. It was noted that Section 176(3) of the CrPC was the only exhumation-related law in India. It was held that disinterment is not a right, but that a court will not normally order or permit the disinterment of a person unless there is a sufficient showing of necessity that disinterment is in the interests of justice.

[Mohammed Latif Magrey vs Union Territory Of Jammu and Kashmir]

'Once Buried, A Body Should Not Be Disturbed' : Supreme Court Suggests Enactment Of Law On Exhumation The Supreme Court has suggested that the Union Government should consider enacting an appropriate legislation on exhumation.The right to dignity and fair treatment under Article 21 of the...

The Constitutional Law Society conducted an orientation session for the Batch of 2027 on September 3, 2022. The purpose of the orientation was to acquaint the new batch with the various initiatives that the Society undertakes. Our members briefly discussed about the judgement writing competiton, video series, podcasts, updates, lecture series, discussions etc. We are thankful to the first years for taking out time and showing enthusiasm during our session.

The Kerala High Court held that the right to protest on matters of government neglect does not mean that they have the right to protest against a project that is legally permitted.
The Court was deciding on the issue of stalling of construction work in a site being built by Adani Ports in Vizhinjam by protesters despite environmental clearance being granted in 2014. The Court ordered that peaceful protests can go on but without any obstruction or trespass into the legally permitted project area.

(M/s Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt. Ltd. v State of Kerala)

Right to protest against government does not confer right to obstruct: Kerala High Court orders police protection for Adani Ports at Vizhinjam The Court was considering pleas that sought police protection at the construction site of Adani Group’s Vizhinjam International Transhipment Deepwater Multipurpose Seaport,Thiruvananthapuram in light of ongoing protests.