Constitutional Law: The Canon

1950

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras

The first great fundamental rights case

The communist leader A.K. Gopalan challenged his detention under the Preventive Detention Act 1950. The majority held that each fundamental right is a separate code: a law depriving a person of liberty need only satisfy Article 21 ("procedure established by law", meaning any procedure enacted by the legislature), not Article 19. Justice Fazl Ali dissented. The "separate silos" view was abandoned in R.C. Cooper (1970) and Maneka Gandhi (1978).

• Six-judge bench.
• Dissent: Fazl Ali J.
• Overruled in substance by R.C. Cooper and Maneka Gandhi.

1951

State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan

The case that caused the First Amendment

The Supreme Court struck down the Madras government's "Communal G.O.", which allotted seats in medical and engineering colleges by caste and religion, as violating Article 29(2). Parliament responded within weeks with the First Amendment, inserting Article 15(4) to permit special provisions for backward classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

• Led to the insertion of Article 15(4).

1951

Shankari Prasad v. Union of India

Can Parliament amend fundamental rights?

Upholding the First Amendment, the Supreme Court held that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 includes the power to amend fundamental rights, and that the word "law" in Article 13 refers to ordinary legislation, not constitutional amendments. The same view was taken in Sajjan Singh (1965).

• Upheld the 1st Amendment.
• Followed in Sajjan Singh (1965); reversed in Golak Nath (1967).

1951

In re Delhi Laws Act

The limits of delegated legislation

A seven-judge bench, answering a Presidential reference, held that the legislature may delegate power to the executive to make subordinate legislation but cannot abdicate its essential legislative function: it must lay down the policy and the executive may fill in the details.

• A Presidential reference under Article 143.
• The legislature cannot delegate its essential legislative function.

1965

Special Reference No. 1 of 1964 (Keshav Singh)

Legislatures versus courts

When the Uttar Pradesh assembly committed Keshav Singh for contempt, and the Allahabad High Court granted him bail, the assembly ordered the arrest of the judges. On a Presidential reference, the Supreme Court held that legislative privileges are subject to the fundamental rights and that courts can examine a legislature's committal of a citizen through habeas corpus.