Constitution of India

In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 481, the Supreme Court has enunciated the following test for determining whether an entity is an instrumentality or agency of the State:

(1)If the entire share capital of the Corporation is held by the Government, it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of the Government.

(2)Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost the entire expenditure of the corporation it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with government character.

(3)Whether the corporation enjoys a monopoly status which is conferred or protected by the State.

(4)Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the corporation is a State agency or an instrumentality.

(5)If the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to government functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying a corporation as an instrumentality or agency of government.

(6)If a department of government is transferred to a corporation, it would be a strong factor supporting an inference of the corporation being an instrumentality or agency of government.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2022, Q. 1(b) (Syllabus 2017).

Article 12 of the Constitution of India defines State and its scope includes the Government and Parliament of India; the Government and Legislature of each of the States; and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.

In the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 481, the Supreme Court has enunciated the following test for determining whether an entity is an instrumentality or agency of the State:

(1)If the entire share capital of the Corporation is held by the Government, it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of the Government.

(2)Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost the entire expenditure of the corporation it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with government character.

(3)Whether the corporation enjoys a monopoly status which is conferred or protected by the State.

(4)Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the corporation is a State agency or an instrumentality.

(5)If the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to government functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying a corporation as an instrumentality or agency of government.

(6)If a department of government is transferred to a corporation, it would be a strong factor supporting an inference of the corporation being an instrumentality or agency of government.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2018, Q. 1(c) (Syllabus 2017).

The most important legislative power conferred on the President is to promulgate Ordinances.

Article 123 of the Constitution of India provides that the President shall have the power to legislate by Ordinances at any time when it is not possible to have a parliamentary enactment on the subject, immediately. This is a special feature of the Constitution of India.

The ambit of this ordinance-making power of the President is co-extensive with the legislative powers of Parliament, that is to say it may relate to any subject in respect of which Parliament has the right to legislate and is subject to the same constitutional limitations as legislation by Parliament.

According to Article 13(3)(a) “Law” includes an “ordinance”. But an ordinance shall be of temporary duration. It may be of any nature, i.e., it may be retrospective or may amend or repeal any law or Act of Parliament itself.

This independent power of the executive to legislate by ordinance has the following peculiarities:

(i)The ordinance-making power will be available to the President only when both the Houses of Parliament have been prorogued or is otherwise not in session, so that it is not possible to have a law enacted by Parliament. However, ordinance can be made even if only one House is in Session because law cannot be made by that House in session alone. Both the Houses must be in session when Parliament makes the law. The President’s ordinance making power under the Constitution is not a co-ordinate or parallel power of legislation along with Legislature.

(ii)This power is to be exercised by the President on the advice of his Council of Ministers.

(iii)The President must be satisfied about the need for the ordinance and he cannot be compelled.

(iv)The ordinance must be laid before Parliament when it re-assembles, and shall automatically cease to have effect at the expiration of 6 weeks from the date of re-assembly or before resolutions have been passed disapproving the ordinance.

(v)The period of six weeks will be counted from the latter date if the Houses re-assemble on different dates.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2025, Q. 6(c) (Syllabus 2022).

A law is void only "to the extent of the inconsistency or contravention" with the relevant Fundamental Right. It is known as Doctrine of Severability. According to Article 13 of the Constitution of India, it is not the entire law which is affected by the provisions in Part III, but the law becomes invalid only to the extent to which it is inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights. So only that part of the law will be declared invalid which is inconsistent, and the rest of the law will stand.

However, on this point a clarification has been made by the Courts that invalid part of the law shall be severed and declared invalid if really it is severable, i.e., if after separating the invalid part the valid part is capable of giving effect to the legislature's intent, then only it will survive, otherwise the Court shall declare the entire law as invalid.

The doctrine has been applied invariably to cases where it has been found possible to separate the invalid part from the valid part of an Act. Article 13 of the Constitution only says that any law which is inconsistent with the fundamental rights is void "to the extent of inconsistency" and this has been interpreted to imply that it is not necessary to strike down the whole Act as invalid, if only a part is invalid and that part can survive independently. In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, A.I.R.1950 S.C. 27, the Supreme Court ruled that where an Act was partly invalid, if the valid portion was severable from the rest, the valid portion would be maintained, provided that it was sufficient to carry out the purpose of the Act.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2021, Q. 4(c) (Syllabus 2017).

The word ‘law’ according to the definition given in Article 13 of the Constitution includes - “any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India, the force of law.”

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2024, Q. 1(a)(v) (Syllabus 2022).

According to Article 13 of the Constitution of India an existing law inconsistent with a fundamental right became in-operative from the date of the commencement of the Constitution, yet it is not dead altogether. A law made before the commencement of the Constitution remains eclipsed or dormant to the extent it comes under the shadow of the fundamental rights, i.e. is inconsistent with it, but the eclipsed or dormant parts become active and effective again if the prohibition brought about by the fundamental rights is removed by the amendment of the Constitution. This is known as the doctrine of eclipse.

The doctrine was first evolved in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P., A.I.R.

1955 S.C. 781. In this case, the validity of C.P. and Berar Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 1947, empowering the Government to regulate, control and to take up the entire motor transport business was challenged. The Act was perfectly a valid piece of legislation at the time of its enactment. But on the commencement of the Constitution, the existing law became inconsistent under Article 13(1), as it contravened the freedom to carry on trade and business under Article 19(1)(g). To remove the infirmity the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 was passed which permitted creation by law of State monopoly in respect of motor transport business. The Court held that the Article by reason of its language could not be read as having obliterated the entire operation of the inconsistent law or having wiped it altogether from the statute book. In case of a pre-Constitution law or statute, it was held, that the doctrine of eclipse would apply. The relevant part of the judgement is:

“The true position is that the impugned law became as it were, eclipsed, for the time being, by the fundamental right. The effect of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 was to remove the shadow and to make the impugned Act free from all blemish or infirmity.”

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2020, Q. 1(b) (Syllabus 2017).

Doctrine of Severability According to Article 13(2) of the Constitution of India the State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by Part III and if such a law is made, it shall be void to the extent to which it curtails any such right. In State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh AIR 2012 SC 1040 the Supreme Court has held that article 13 (2) clearly prohibits the making of any law by the State which takes away or abridges rights, conferred by part III of the Constitution. In the event of such a law being made the same shall be void to the extent of contravention.

The doctrine has been applied invariably to cases where it has been found possible to separate the invalid part from the valid part of an Act. Article 13 only says that any law which is inconsistent with the fundamental rights is void “to the extent of inconsistency” and this has been interpreted to imply that it is not necessary to strike down the whole Act as invalid, if only a part is invalid. The other part can survive independently. In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 27, the Supreme Court ruled that where an Act was partly invalid, if the valid portion was severable from the rest, the valid portion would be maintained, provided that it was sufficient to carry out the purpose of the Act.

Thus, according to Article 13, it is not the entire law which is affected by the provisions in Part III, but the law becomes invalid only to the extent to which it is inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights. So only that part of the law will be declared invalid which is inconsistent, and the rest of the law will stand. However, on this point a clarification has been made by the Courts that invalid part of the law shall be severed and declared invalid if really it is severable, i.e., if after separating the invalid part the valid part is capable of giving effect to the legislature’s intent, then only it will survive, otherwise the Court shall declare the entire law as invalid. This is known as the Rule of Severability.

In view of the above discussion, it can be said that the Section 5 of the Social Harmony Act, 2021, which imposes blanket restrictions on public meetings, can be said to be unconstitutional as violative of fundamental rights and can be severed, and the rest of the Act may continue to operate validly.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2025, Q. 3(c) (Syllabus 2022).

In the case of P. Rajandran, Supreme Court held that for a valid classification, there has to be a rational nexus between the classification made by the law and the object sought to be achieved. A provision for district - wise distribution of seats to the State Medical Colleges on the basis of population of a district to the population of the state was held to be void.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2022, Q. 1(c) (Syllabus 2017).

The rules with respect to permissible classification as evolved in various decisions have been summarised by the Supreme Court in Ram Kishan Dalmiya v. Justice Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC, 538 as follows:

(i)Article 14 forbids class legislation, but does not forbid classification.

(ii)Permissible classification must satisfy two conditions, namely, (a) it must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (b) the differentia must have a relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.

(iii)The classification may be founded on different basis, namely geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like.

(iv)In permissible classification, mathematical nicety and perfect equality are not required. Similarly, non- identity of treatment is enough.

(v)Even a single individual may be treated a class by himself on account of some special circumstances or reasons applicable to him and not applicable to others; a law may be constitutional even though it relates to a single individual who is in a class by himself.

(vi)Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by substantive law but by a law of procedure.

(vii)There is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2023, Q. 1(d) (Syllabus 2017).

Article 14 of the Constitution of India provides that “the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India”.

As is evident, Article 14 guarantees to every person the right to equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws. The expression ‘equality before the law’ which is borrowed from English Common Law is a declaration of equality of all persons within the territory of India, implying thereby the absence of any special privilege in favour of any individual. Every person, whatever be his rank or position is subject to the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. The expression “the equal protection of the laws” directs that equal protection shall be secured to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the Union in the enjoyment of their rights and privileges without favouritism or discrimination.

Article 14 applies to all persons and is not limited to citizens. A corporation, which is a juristic person, is also entitled to the benefit of this Article (Chiranjit Lal Chowdhurary v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41). The right to equality is also recognised as one of the basic features of the Constitution (Indra Sawhney v.Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 498).

A right conferred on persons that they shall not be denied equal protection of the laws does not mean the protection of the same laws for all. It is here that the doctrine of classification steps in and gives content and significance to the guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. To separate persons similarly situated from those who are not, legislative classification or distinction is made carefully between persons who are and who are not similarly situated. The Supreme Court in a number of cases has upheld the view that Article 14 does not rule out classification for purposes of legislation. Article 14 does not forbid classification or differentiation which rests upon reasonable grounds of distinction.

The Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Bihar State ‘Plus-2’ lectures Associations, (2008) 7 SCC 231 held that now it is well settled and cannot be disputed that Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law and confers equal protection of laws. It prohibits the state from denying persons or class of persons equal treatment; provided they are equals and are similarly situated. It however, does not forbid classification. In other words, what Article 14 prohibits is discrimination and not classification if otherwise such classification is legal, valid and reasonable.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2019, Q. 5(b) (Syllabus 2017).

Article 16(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India lay down provisions for equal opportunity of employment in the public sector. However, there are certain exceptions provided in Article 16(3), 16(4), 16(4A), 16(4B), 16(5) & 16(6). These are as under:

1.Parliament can make a law that in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Government of a State on a Union Territory, under any local or other authority within the State or Union Territory, residence within that State or Union Territory prior to such employment or appointment shall be an essential qualification. [(Article 16(3)].

2.A provision can be made for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented in the services under the State. [Article 16(4)].

3.Parliament can make law for reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State. [Article 16(4A)].

4.The State can consider any unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance with any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or clause (4A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty per cent. reservation on total number of vacancies of that year. [Article 16(4B)].

5.A law shall not be invalid if it provides that the incumbent of an office in connection with the affair of any religious or denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination. (Article 16(5)].

6.Parliament can make law for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clause (4), in addition to the existing reservation and subject to a maximum of ten per cent. of the posts in each category. [Article 16(6)].

Using the exceptions, the government, both at the central and state levels, have reserved government jobs for STs, SCs, OBCs, women and economically weaker section of the unreserved castes. These reservations are part of ‘affirmative action’ policies of the government.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2021, Q. 6(a) (Syllabus 2017).

Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all citizens equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment or appointment of office under the State.

Article 16(2) prohibits discrimination against a citizen on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth or residence. However, there are certain exceptions provided in Article 16(3), 16(4), 16(4A), 16(4B), 16(5) and 16(6).These exceptions are as follows:

•Parliament can make a law that in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Government of a State or a Union Territory, under any local or other authority within the State or Union Territory, residence within that State or Union Territory prior to such employment or appointment shall be an essential qualification. [Article 16(3)]

•A provision can be made for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented in the services under the State. [Article 16(4)]

•Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.

[Article 16(4A)]

•Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance with any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or clause (4A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty per cent. reservation on total number of vacancies of that year. [Article 16(4B)]

•A law shall not be invalid if it provides that the incumbent of an office in connection with the affair of any religious or denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination. [Article 16(5)]

•Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clause (4), in addition to the existing reservation and subject to a maximum of ten per cent. of the posts in each category. [Article 16(6)].

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2024, Q. 1(b) (Syllabus 2017).

Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India, guarantees to the citizens of India six freedoms, namely:

1.Freedom of Speech and Expression: Includes the right to express opinions, free press, and the right to information.

2.Freedom of Assembly: Right to assemble peacefully without arms.

3.Freedom of Association: Right to form unions, associations, or cooperative societies.

4.Freedom of Movement: Right to move freely throughout India.

5.Freedom of Residence: Right to reside and settle in any part of India.

6.Freedom of Profession: Right to practice any profession, occupation, trade or business.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2026, Q. 1(b)(i) (Syllabus 2022).

Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India guarantee freedom of speech and expression and right to assemble peacefully without arms. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Court emphasized protection of online speech. In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, it was held that internet access is integral to free speech. Here the protest was peaceful and within campus. Hence blanket ban restricts both physical and digital expression and blocking social media directly impacts freedom of speech. The order can result in a prima facie violation of Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b).

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2026, Q. 1(b)(ii) (Syllabus 2022).

According to Article of 19(1) (c) of the Constitution of India, all citizens shall have the right to form associations or unions. The freedom of association includes freedom to hold meeting and to takeout processions without arms. Right to form associations for unions is also guaranteed so that people are free to have the members entertaining similar views. This right is also, however, subject to reasonable restrictions which the State may impose in the interests of:

(i)The sovereignty and integrity of India, or

(ii)Public order, or

(iii)Morality.

A question not yet free from doubt is whether the fundamental right to form association also conveys the freedom to deny to form an association. In the case of Tikaramji v.

Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 676, the Supreme Court observed that assuming the right to form an association “implies a right not to form an association, it does not follow that the negative right must also be regarded as a fundamental right”.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2019, Q. 1(b) (Syllabus 2017).

Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India provides that all citizens shall have the right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

An analysis of the case law reveals that the emphasis of the Courts has been on social control and social policy. However, no hard and fast rules have been laid down by the Court for interpreting this Article. The words ‘trade’, ‘business’, ‘profession’ used in this Article have received a variety of interpretations. The word ‘trade’ has been held to include the occupation of men in buying and selling, barter or commerce, work, especially skilled, thus of the widest scope (The Management of Safdarjung Hospital v. K.S. Sethi, AIR 1970 S.C. 1407).

The word ‘business’ is more comprehensive than the word ‘trade’. Each case must be decided according to its own circumstances, applying the common sense principle as to what business is. A profession on the other hand, has been held ordinarily as an occupation requiring intellectual skill, often coupled with manual skill. Like other freedoms discussed above, this freedom is also subject to reasonable restrictions. Article 19(6)

provides as under:

Nothing in sub-clause (g) shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions in the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and in particular, nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to –

(i)the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or

(ii)the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, industry or service whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise.

Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution guarantees that all citizens have the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation or trade or business. The freedom is not uncontrolled, for, clause (6) of the Article authorises legislation which (i) imposes reasonable restrictions on this freedom in the interests of the general public; (ii) prescribes professional or technical qualifications necessary for carrying on any profession, trade or business; and (iii) enables the State to carry on any trade or business to the exclusion of private citizens, wholly or partially.

In order to determine the reasonableness of the restriction, regard must be had to the nature of the business and conditions prevailing in that trade. It is obvious that these factors differ from trade to trade, and no hard and fast rules concerning all trades can be laid down. The word ‘restriction’ used in clause (6) is wide enough to include cases of total prohibition also. Accordingly, even if the effect of a law is the elimination of the dealers from the trade, the law may be valid, provided it satisfies the test of reasonableness or otherwise.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2020, Q. 5(b) (Syllabus 2017).

Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India specifies the limits up to which the freedom of speech and expression may be restricted. It enables the Legislature to impose by law reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression under the following heads:

•Sovereignty and integrity of India

•Security of the State

•Friendly relations with foreign States

•Public order

•Decency or morality

•Contempt of court

•Defamation

•Incitement to an offence.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2026, Q. 1(b)(iii) (Syllabus 2022).

Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India specifies the grounds on which the freedom of speech and expression may be restricted. It enables the Legislature to impose by law reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression under the following heads:

—Sovereignty and integrity of India — Security of the State — Friendly relation with foreign States — Public Order — Decency or morality or — Contempt of Court — Defamation — Incitement to an offence

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2018, Q. 3(b) (Syllabus 2017).

Creation of monopoly rights in favour of a person or body of persons to carry on any business prima facie affects the freedom of trade. But in certain circumstances it can be justified.

After the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1951, the State creates a monopoly in favour of itself, without being called upon to justify its action in the Court as being reasonable.

Sub-clause (ii) of clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India makes it clear that the freedom of profession, trade or business will not be understood to mean to prevent the state from undertaking either directly or through a corporation owned or controlled by it, any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, citizens or otherwise.

If a law is passed creating a State monopoly the Court should enquire as to what are the provisions of the said law which are basically and essentially necessary for creating the state monopoly. Sub-clause (ii) of clause (6) protects only the essential and basic provisions. If there are other provisions which are subsidiary or incidental to the operation of the monopoly they do not fall under Article 19(6)(ii). It was held by Shah, J. in R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 248, that the impugned law which prohibited the named banks from carrying the banking business was a necessary incident of the business assumed by the Union and hence was not liable to be challenged under Article 19(6)(ii) in so far as it affected the right of a citizen to carry on business.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2024, Q. 4(a) (Syllabus 2017).

Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India provides protection against ex post facto criminal laws.

According to Article 20(1), no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.

Therefore, Sanjay cannot be punished with imprisonment for an act that, when committed, only attracted a fine.

In view of this, it may be said that opening of Sanjay’s old case under the amended law violates his fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2025, Q. 1(a)(i) (Syllabus 2022).

According to Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India, no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.

Ex-post facto laws are laws which punished what had been lawful when done. If a particular act was not an offence according to the law of the land at the time when the person did that act, then he cannot be convicted under a law which retrospectively declares that act as an offence.

Even the penalty for the commission of an offence cannot be increased with retrospective effect.

In the given case, for committing dacoity the punishment in 2015 was 10 years imprisonment and Vijay commits dacoity in that year. By a law passed after his committing the dacoity the punishment, for his act cannot be increased to life imprisonment, because punishment cannot be increased retrospectively.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2021, Q. 1(b) (Syllabus 2017).

Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India provides protection against self-incrimination. It states that “No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” This means that an accused person cannot be forced to give evidence that is of a testimonial nature, i.e., evidence that requires the use of his mental faculties to disclose personal knowledge about facts that could incriminate him.

The Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad and others (1961) held that Article 20(3)

protects only against testimonial compulsion. Physical evidence such as fingerprints, handwriting, blood samples, or voice samples can be lawfully obtained, even without consent, as they do not involve giving personal testimony.

Thus, compelling Sanjay to give thumb impression and voice samples does not violate Article 20(3)

of the Constitution.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2025, Q. 1(a)(ii) (Syllabus 2022).

According to Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. In other words, an accused cannot be compelled to state anything which goes against him. But it is to be noted that a person is entitled to this protection, only when all the three conditions are fulfilled:

1.that he must be accused of an offence;

2.that there must be a compulsion to be a witness; and

3.such compulsion should result in his giving evidence against himself So, if the person was not an accused when he made a statement or the statement was not made as a witness or it was made by him without compulsion and does not result as a statement against himself, then the protection available under this provision does not extend to such person or to such statement.

The ‘right against self-incrimination’ protects persons who have been formally accused as well as those who are examined as suspects in criminal cases. It also extends to cover witnesses who apprehend that their answers could expose them to criminal charges in the ongoing investigation or even in cases other than the one being investigated. [Selvi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974].

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2023, Q. 6A(iii) (Syllabus 2017).

According to Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. In other words, an accused cannot be compelled to state anything which goes against him. But it is to be noted that a person is entitled to this protection, only when all the three conditions are fulfilled:

1.that he must be accused of an offence;

2.that there must be a compulsion to be a witness; and

3.such compulsion should result in his giving evidence against himself.

So, if the person was not an accused when he made a statement or the statement was not made as a witness or it was made by him without compulsion and does not result as a statement against himself, then the protection available under this provision does not extend to such person or to such statement.

The ‘right against self-incrimination’ protects persons who have been formally accused as well as those who are examined as suspects in criminal cases. It also extends to cover witnesses who apprehend that their answers could expose them to criminal charges in the ongoing investigation or even in cases other than the one being investigated.

[Selvi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974].

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2018, Q. 2A(iv) (Syllabus 2017).

Article 21 of the Constitution of India confers on every person the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. It says that, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” The expression ‘procedure established by law’ means procedure laid down by statute or procedure prescribed by the law of the State.

Accordingly, first, there must be a law justifying interference with the person’s life or personal liberty, and secondly, the law should be a valid law, and thirdly, the procedure laid down by the law should have been strictly followed. The procedure must be fair, just and reasonable.

It must not be arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the procedure under Article 21 must be fair, just and reasonable and not arbitrary.

In the given situation, the students were peaceful and no unlawful activity was established.

Hence, detention can be said to be arbitrary and without due process. Therefore, detention may be said to be illegal and violative of Article 21.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2026, Q. 1(b)(iv) (Syllabus 2022).

Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

The Supreme Court has in many cases interpreted “right to life” broadly, to include the right to health and timely medical care, especially for persons in custody.

In the given situation, denying Sanjay proper treatment for his asthma attack while he was in police custody violates his fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2025, Q. 1(a)(iv) (Syllabus 2022).

According to Article 21 of the Constitution of India no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

The expression ‘procedure established by law’ means procedure laid down by statute or procedure prescribed by the law of the State. Accordingly, first, there must be a law justifying interference with the person’s life or personal liberty, and secondly, the law should be a valid law, and thirdly, the procedure laid down by the law should have been strictly followed.

The law laid down in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27, that the expression ‘procedure established by law’ means only the procedure enacted by a law made by the State. Subsequently, in Maneka Gandhi's case (AIR 1978 SC 49), it was laid down, that the law must now be taken to be well settled that Article 21 does not exclude Article 19 and a law prescribing a procedure for depriving a person of ‘personal liberty’ will have to meet the requirements of Article 21 and also of Article 19, as well as of Article 14.

The procedure must be fair, just and reasonable. It must not be arbitrary fanciful or oppressive. An interesting, follow-up of the Maneka Gandhi's case came in a series of cases.

In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 S.C. 898, it was reiterated that in Article 21 the founding fathers recognised the right of the State to deprive a person of his life or personal liberty in accordance with fair, just and reasonable procedure established by valid law.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2018, Q. 5(b) (Syllabus 2017).

Parliament has the power to make a law for preventive detention for reasons connected with defence, foreign affairs or the security of India. Parliament and State Legislatures are both entitled to pass a law of preventive detention for reasons connected with the security of State, the maintenance of public order, or the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.

Safeguards against Preventive Detention Article 22 (amended by the 44th Constitution Amendment Act, 1978) contains following safeguards against preventive detention:

(a)such a person cannot be detained for a longer period than three months unless:

(i)An Advisory Board constituted of persons who are or have been or are qualified to be High Court judges has reported, before the expiration of the said period of three months that there is, in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention.

(ii)Parliament may by law prescribe the maximum period for which any person may any class or classes of cases be detained under any law providing for preventive detention and the procedure to be followed by an Advisory Board.

(b)The authority ordering the detention of a person under the preventive detention law shall:

(i)communicate to him, as soon as may be, the grounds on which the order for his detention has been made, and

(ii)afford him the earliest opportunity of making the representation against the order.

It may, however, be noted that while the grounds for making the order are to be supplied, the authority making such order is not bound to disclose those facts which it considers to be against the public interest.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2022, Q. 3(d) (Syllabus 2017).

Preventive detention means detention of a person without trial. The object of preventive detention is not to punish a person for having done something but to prevent him from doing it. No offence is proved nor any charge formulated and yet a person is detained because he is likely to commit an act prohibited by law. Parliament has the power to make a law for preventive detention for reasons connected with defence, foreign affairs or the security of India. Parliament and State Legislatures are both entitled to pass a law of preventive detention for reasons connected with the security of State, the maintenance of public order, or the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.

Safeguards against Preventive Detention Article 22 of the Indian Constitution contains following safeguards against preventive detention:

(a)such a person cannot be detained for a longer period than three months unless:

(i)An Advisory Board constituted of persons who are or have been or are qualified to be High Court judges has reported, before the expiration of the said period of three months that there is, in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention.

(ii)Parliament may by law prescribe the maximum period for which any person may in any class or classes of cases be detained under any law providing for preventive detention and the procedure to be followed by an Advisory Board.

(b)The authority ordering the detention of a person under the preventive detention law shall:

(i)communicate to him, as soon as may be, the grounds on which the order for his detention has been made, and

(ii)afford him the earliest opportunity of making the representation against the order.

It may, however, be noted that while the grounds for making the order are to be supplied, the authority making such order is not bound to disclose those facts which it considers to be against the public interest.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2023, Q. 2(d) (Syllabus 2017).

According to Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India, every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate.

Therefore, the act police by detaining Sanjay for three days without producing him before the magistrate would amount to violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2025, Q. 1(a)(iii) (Syllabus 2022).

Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights, including the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21.

In the case of illegal detention, the court can issue the writ of habeas corpus directing the authorities to produce Sanjay before the court and justify his detention. If the detention is found to be unlawful, the High Court may order his immediate release.

Thus, Sanjay’s family can directly approach the High Court against his detention for the remedy by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2025, Q. 1(a)(v) (Syllabus 2022).

According to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank and Others decided on 12.04.2024, High Court cannot entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person. However, it is subject to certain exceptions.

This case can be referred to for understanding and give more clarity of the law relating to entertaining writ petition by the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In the instant case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has that it could thus clearly be seen that the Court has carved out certain exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability of an alternative remedy. Some of them are thus:

(i)where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question;

(ii)it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure;

(iii)it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed; and

(iv)when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice In view of the above it can be said that while the High Court generally expects on the exhaustion of alternative remedies, it retains the discretion to entertain a petition under Article 226 in exceptional cases such as where alternative remedies are inadequate, ineffective, or unavailable, or where there is a clear case of injustice or a violation of fundamental rights.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2024, Q. 4(d) (Syllabus 2017).

Fundamental Rights against exploitation under the Constitution of India are provided in Article 23 and 24. They are described as under:

(a)Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour Article 23 imposes a ban on traffic in human beings, begar and other similar forms of forced labour. The contravention of these provisions is declared punishable by law. Thus, the traditional system of beggary particularly in villages, becomes unconstitutional and a person who is asked to do any labour without payment or even a labourer with payment against his desire can complain against the violation of his fundamental right under Article 23. ‘Traffic’ in human beings means to deal in men and women like goods, such as to sell or let or otherwise dispose them of. ‘Begar’ means involuntary work without payment. The State can impose compulsory service for public purposes such as conscription for defence or social service etc. While imposing such compulsory service the State cannot make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them. (Clause 2 of Article 23).

Traffic in human beings i.e. women, children, etc. and forced labour militate against human dignity. Under the old Zamidari system, the tenants were sometimes forced to render free service to their landlords. This was called begar. Indian citizens are now free to take up any job for which they are found suitable and workers cannot be paid less than minimum wages fixed by the Government. Children of the prostitutes have a right to equality of opportunity, dignity, care, protection and rehabilitation so as to be part of the mainstream of social life. This is declared in the case of Gaurav Jain & Union of India A.I.R 1997 S.C. 3021.

(b)Prohibition of employment of children Article 24 prohibits the employment of children below the age of fourteen in any factory or mine. The Factories Act, 1948; The Mines Act, 1952; The Apprentices’ Act, 1961; and the Child & Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 are some of the important enactments in the statute book to protect the children from exploitation by unscrupulous employers. The Supreme Court has issued detailed guidelines as to child labour in M.C. Mehta v. State of T.N., AIR 1993 S.C. 699.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2021, Q. 1(a) (Syllabus 2017).

The facts of the given situation are similar to the case of G. Chawla v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1959 SC 544. The Rajasthan Legislature passed a law restricting the use of sound amplifiers. The law was challenged on the ground that it dealt with a matter which fell in entry 31 of List I which reads:

“Post and telegraphs, telephones, wireless broadcasting and other like forms of communication”, and, therefore, the State Legislature was not competent to pass it. The Supreme Court rejected this argument on the ground that the object of the law was to prohibit unnecessary noise affecting the health of public and not to make a law on broadcasting, etc. Therefore, the pith and substance of the law was “public health” and not “broadcasting”.

Therefore, in the given situation, the pith and substance rule can be applied. According to this rule, where a law in reality and substance falls within an entry on which the legislature which enacted that law is competent to legislate, then such law shall not become invalid merely because it incidentally touches a matter outside the competence of legislature.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2024, Q. 1(a)(i) (Syllabus 2022).

Under the following circumstances the Parliament is authorised to make Laws on the subjects enumerated in the State List –

(i)In the National Interest (Article 249) - Parliament can make a law with respect to a matter enumerated in the State List if the Council of States declares by a resolution supported by two-thirds of its members present and voting, that it is necessary or expedient in the national interest that Parliament should make a law on that matter. By such declaration Parliament gets the authority to legislate on that matter for the whole or part of the country so long as the resolution of the Council of States remains in force. But such resolution shall remain in force for a period not exceeding one year.

(ii)During a proclamation of emergency (Article 250) - While a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, Article 250 of the Constitution of India removes restrictions on the legislative authority of the Union Legislature in relation to the subjects enumerated in the State List. Thus, during emergency, Parliament shall have power to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India with respect to all matters in the State List.

(iii)Breakdown of Constitutional Machinery in a State (Article 356 and 357) - In case the Governor of a State reports to the President, or if he is otherwise satisfied that the Government of a State cannot be carried on according to the provisions of the Constitution, then he (President) can make a proclamation to that effect. By that proclamation, he can assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State and all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by the Governor or anybody or authority in the State, and declare that the powers of Legislature of that State shall vest in Parliament.

(iv)On the request of two or more States (Article 252) - Article 252 of the Constitution enumerates the power of Parliament to legislate for state. The exercise of such power is conditional upon an agreement between two or more States requesting Parliament to legislate for them on a specified subject

(v)Legislation for enforcing international agreements (Article 253) - Parliament has exclusive power with respect to foreign affairs and entering into treaties and agreements with foreign countries and implementing of treaties and agreements and conventions with foreign countries. But a treaty or agreement concluded with another country may require national implementation and for that purpose a law may be needed. To meet such difficulties, the Constitution authorises the Parliament to make law on any subject included in any list to implement:

(a)any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or countries, or

(b)any decision made at any international conference, association or other body.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2021, Q. 5(b) (Syllabus 2017).

According to Article 249 of the Constitution of India, Parliament can make a law with respect to a matter enumerated in the State List if the Council of States declares by a resolution supported by two-thirds of its members present and voting, that it is necessary or expedient in the national interest that Parliament should make a law on that matter. By such declaration Parliament gets the authority to legislate on that matter for the whole or part of the country so long as the resolution of the Council of States remains in force. But such resolution shall remain in force for a period not exceeding one year. However, a fresh resolution can be passed at the end of one year to give extended lease to the law of Parliament and that way the law of Parliament can be continued to remain in force for any number of years.

The laws passed by Parliament under the provision cease to have effect automatically after six months of the expiry of the resolution period. Beyond that date, such Parliamentary law becomes inoperative except as regards the thing done or omitted to be done before the expiry of that law.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2025, Q. 1(a)(v) (Syllabus 2022).

Article 252 of the Constitution of India enumerates the Power of Parliament to legislate for two or more States by consent and adoption of such legislation by any other State. This Article provides that, if two or more States are desirous that on any particular item included in the State List there should be a common legislation applicable to all such States then they can make a request to Parliament to make such law on that particular subject.

Such request shall be made by passing a resolution in the legislatures of the State concerned. If request is made in that form, then Parliament can make law on that subject as regards those States.

The law so made may be adopted by other States also, by passing resolutions in their legislatures.

According to Article 252(2), any Act so passed by Parliament may be amended or repealed by an Act of Parliament passed or adopted in like manner but shall not, as respects any State to which it applies, be amended or repealed by an Act of the Legislature of that State.

Therefore, if a consenting State subsequently enacts a conflicting law on the same subject, such a State law would not be valid to the extent of inconsistency with the law made by the parliament.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2025, Q. 1(a)(iii) (Syllabus 2022).

Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India provides an exception to the general rule of repugnancy in the Concurrent List. It states that where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State.

However, nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2025, Q. 1(a)(i) (Syllabus 2022).

The Constitution of India allows the central and state governments to enter into contracts under Article 299 of the Constitution of India. According to its provisions a contract with the Government of the Union or state will be valid and binding only if the following conditions are followed:

1.The contract with the Government must be made in the name of the President or the Governor, as the case may be.

2.The contract must be executed on behalf of the President or the Governor of the State as the case may be. The word executed indicates that a contract with the Government will be valid only when it is in writing.

3.A person duly authorized by the President or the Governor of the State, as the case may be, must execute the contract.

Article 299 (2) of the Constitution makes it clear that neither the President nor the Governor shall be personally liable in respect of any contract or assurance made or executed for the purposes of the Constitution or for the purposes of any enactment relating to the Government of India. Subject to the provisions of Article 299 (1), the other provisions of the general law of contract apply even to the Government contract.

Thus, Article 299 provides a constitutional framework for government contracts to ensure legality and safeguard public interest. By requiring contracts to be made in the name of the President or Governor, executed in writing, and signed by authorized persons, the Constitution ensures that government obligations arise only through proper and lawful procedures.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2026, Q. 6A(i) (Syllabus 2022).

A contract with the Government of the Union or State will be valid and binding only if the following conditions are followed:

1.The contract with the Government must be made in the name of the President or the Governor, as the case may be.

2.The contract must be executed on behalf of the President or the Governor of the State as the case may be. The word executed indicates that a contract with the Government will be valid only when it is in writing.

3.A person duly authorised by the President or the Governor of the State, as the case may be, must execute the contract.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2024, Q. 1(b)(i) (Syllabus 2022).

As soon as the contract is executed with the Government in accordance with Article 299 of the Constitution of India, the whole law of contract as contained in the Indian Contract Act, 1872 comes into operation. In India, the remedy for the breach of a contract with Government is simply a suit for damages.

Further, writ of mandamus can be issued for the enforcement of contractual obligations (Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. Lotus Hotels, 1983 3 SCC 379).

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2024, Q. 1(b)(ii) (Syllabus 2022).

(a)The Constitution of India allows the Central and the State Governments to enter into contracts. According to Article 299(1) of the Constitution of India a contract with the Government of the Union or State will be valid and binding only if the following conditions are followed:

1.The contract with the Government must be made in the name of the President or the Governor, as the case may be.

2.The contract must be executed on behalf of the President or the Governor of the State as the case may be. The word executed indicates that a contract with the Government will be valid only when it is in writing.

3.A person duly authorized by the President or the Governor of the State, as the case may be, must execute the contract.

Thus, in the given situation, the contract is valid as it was made in the name of the Governor.

(b)Article 299 (2) of the Constitution of India makes it clear that neither the President nor the Governor shall be personally liable in respect of any contract or assurance made or executed for the purposes of the Constitution or for the purposes of any enactment relating to the Government of India.

Therefore, in the given situation, the Governor is not personally liable in respect of breach of contract by the State Government.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2023, Q. 2A(ii) (Syllabus 2017).

Part XIII of the Constitution of India under Article 301 guarantees the freedom of trade, Commerce and Intercourse, subject to reasonable restrictions & public interest as mentioned in Article 302 to 307. It is to be noted that Article Part XIII (Article 301-307) is in addition to Articles 14 & 19. Article 301 states:

Subject to the other provisions of Part XIII, trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India shall be free.

The object of the freedom declared by this Article is to ensure that the economic unity of India may not be broken by internal barriers.

The Supreme Court in the very first case on the matter (Atiabari Tea Co. v. State of Assam, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 232) declared that only those laws which “directly and immediately” restrict or impede the freedom of trade and commerce are covered by Article 301 and such laws which directly and incidentally affect the freedom guaranteed in that article are not within the reach of Article 301.

With respect to regulatory laws also, we may say that if they are the laws which facilitate the freedom of trade and commerce then they are not at all laws which impede the free flow of trade and commerce directly or indirectly. The freedom of trade and commerce guaranteed under Article 301 applies throughout the territory of India; it is not only to inter-state but also to intra-state trade, commerce and intercourse. But in no way it covers the foreign trade or the trade beyond the territory of India. Therefore, the foreign trade is free from the restriction of Article 301.

Trade and commerce which are protected by Article 301 are only those activities which are regarded as lawful trading activities and are not against policy. The Supreme Court held that gambling is not “trade”.

Similarly, prize competitions being of gambling in nature, cannot be regarded as trade or commerce and as such are not protected under Article 301 (State of Bombay v. RMDC, AIR 1957 SC 699).

The freedom guaranteed by Article 301 is not made absolute and is to be read subject to the following exceptions as provided in Articles 302-305:

(a)Parliament to Impose Restriction in the Public Interest According to Article 302, Parliament may, by law, impose such restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse as may be required in the public interest.

(b)Parliament to make Preference or Discrimination Parliament cannot by making any law give preference to one State over the other or make discrimination between the States except when it is declared by that law that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of dealing with a situation arising from scarcity of goods in any part of the territory of India [Article 303 (1) and (2)].

(c)Power of the State Legislature The Legislature of a State may by law:

(i)impose on goods imported from other States or the Union territories any tax to which similar goods manufactured or produced in that State are subject, so, however, as not to discriminate between goods so imported and goods so manufactured or produced; and

(ii)impose such reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse within the State as may be required in the public interest.

However, no bill or amendment for making a law falling in provision above can be introduced or moved in the Legislature of a State without the previous sanction of the President. [Article 304]

(d)Saving of Existing Laws The law which was already in force at the commencement of the Constitution shall not be affected by the provisions of Article 301 except in so far as the President may, by order, otherwise direct (Art 305).

(e)Saving of Laws providing for State Monopoly The laws which create State monopoly in any trade, etc. are saved from attack under Article 301, i.e., they are valid irrespective of the fact that they directly impede or restrict the freedom of trade and commerce.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2023, Q. 1(b) (Syllabus 2017).

The writ of Habeas corpus - an effective bulwark of personal liberty is a remedy available to a person who is confined without legal justification. The words ‘Habeas Corpus’ literally mean “to have the body”. When a prima facie case for the issue of writ has been made then the Court issues a rule nisi upon the relevant authority to show-cause why the writ should not be issued. This is in national order to let the Court know on what grounds he has been confined and to set him free if there is no justification for his detention. This writ has to be obeyed by the detaining authority by producing the person before the Court. Under Articles 32 and 226 any person can move for this writ to the Supreme Court and High Court respectively. The applicant may be the prisoner or any person acting on his behalf to safeguard his liberty for the issuance of the writ of Habeas Corpus as no man can be punished or deprived of his personal liberty except for violation of law and in the ordinary legal manner. An appeal to the Supreme Court of India may lie against an order granting or rejecting the application (Articles 132, 134 or 136). The disobedience to this writ can be met with by punishment for contempt of Court under the Contempt of Courts Act.

In the above case, Raj has been detained wrongfully in custody by Yogesh, who is a police officer.

As Raj was detained wrongfully by Yogesh, the writ of habeas corpus can be filed in court by Raj’s family on his behalf since his whereabouts are not known to them.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2025, Q. 4(b) (Syllabus 2022).

The Articles included in Part IV of the Constitution (Articles 36 to 51) contain certain Directives which are the guidelines for the future Government to lead the country. Article 37 provides that the ‘provisions contained in this part shall not be enforceable by any Court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws. The Directives, however, differ from the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution or the ordinary laws of the land in the following respects:

(i)The Directives are not enforceable in the courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favour of individuals.

(ii)The Directives require to be implemented by legislation and so long as there is no law carrying out the policy laid down in a Directive neither the state nor an individual can violate any existing law.

(iii)The Directives per-se do not confer upon or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature.

(iv)The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles.

(v)The courts are not competent to compel the Government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose.

(vi)Though it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives, it can do so only subject to the limitations imposed by the different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of the legislative and executive power by the state.

In the given situation, Rahul cannot enforce the Directive Principles in a court of law.

According to Article 37 of the Constitution of India, the Directive Principles are not enforceable by any court. Therefore, courts cannot compel the government to implement these principles or to enact laws for their implementation.

However, the Directive Principles are fundamental in the governance of the country, and it is the duty of the State to apply them while making laws and policies.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2026, Q. 3(b) (Syllabus 2022).

Article 51A of the Constitution of India imposing the fundamental duties on every citizen of India was inserted by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976.

The objective in introducing these duties is not laid down in the Bill except that since the duties of the citizens are not specified in the Constitution, so it was thought necessary to introduce them.

These Fundamental Duties are:

(a)To abide by the constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem;

(b)To cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom;

(c)To uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India;

(d)To defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so;

(e)To promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women;

(f)To value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture;

(g)To protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures;

(h)To develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform;

(i)To safeguard public property and to abjure violence; (j) To strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavor and achievement; (k) Who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child or, as the case may be, ward between the age of six and fourteen years.

Since the duties are imposed upon the citizens and not upon the States, legislation is necessary for their implementation. Fundamental duties can’t be enforced by writs (Surya Narain v. Union of India, AIR 1982 Raj 1). Supreme Court in AIIMS Students’ Union v. AIIMS (2002) SCC 428 has reiterated that though the fundamental duties are not enforceable by the courts, they provide a valuable guide and aid to the interpretation of Constitutional and legal issues.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2022, Q. 5(b) (Syllabus 2017).

A Bill is a draft statute which becomes law after it is passed by both the house of parliament or State legislature and assented to by the President or Governor. All legislative proposals are brought before parliament or State legislature in the forms of Bills.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2024, Q. 1(a)(iii) (Syllabus 2022).

The essential features of a Federal Polity or System are – dual Government, distribution of powers, supremacy of the Constitution, independence of Judiciary, written Constitution, and a rigid procedure for the amendment of the Constitution.

The political system introduced by our Constitution contain all the above essentials of a federal polity such as:

(a)In India, there are Governments at different levels, like Union and States.

(b)Powers to make laws have been suitably distributed among them by way of various lists as per the Seventh Schedule.

(c)Both Union and States have to follow the Constitutional provisions when they make laws.

(d)The Judiciary is independent with regard to judicial matters and judiciary can test the validity of independently. The Supreme Court decides the disputes between the Union and the States, or the States inter se.

(e)The Constitution is supreme and if it is to be amended, it is possible only by following the procedure provided in Article 368 of the Constitution itself.

From the above, it is clear that the Indian Constitution basically has federal features.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2022, Q. 1(b) (Syllabus 2017).

Judicial review is the authority of Courts to declare void the acts of the legislature and executive if they are found in violation of provisions under Part-III of the Constitution of India. Judicial Review is the power of the highest Court of a jurisdiction to invalidate on Constitutional grounds, the acts of other Government agencies within that jurisdiction.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2024, Q. 1(a)(ii) (Syllabus 2022).

The Rule of Pith and Substance means that where a law in reality and substance falls within an item on which the legislature which enacted that law is competent to legislate, then such law shall not become invalid merely because it incidentally touches a matter outside the competence of legislature.

Acting on Entry 6 of List II of the Constitution of India which reads — Public Health and Sanitation, Rajasthan Legislature passed a law restricting the use of sound amplifiers. The law was challenged on the Schedule VII, entry 31 of List I of the Constitution of India deals with "Post and telegraphs, telephones, wireless broadcasting and other like forms of communication, and, therefore, the State Legislature was not competent to pass it. The Supreme Court rejected this argument on the ground that the object of the law was to prohibit unnecessary noise affecting the health of public and not to make a law on broadcasting, etc. Therefore, the pith and substance of the law was – public health and not – broadcasting (G. Chawla v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1959 SC 544).

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2019, Q. 1(b) (Syllabus 2017).

A State Legislature may make laws that have extraterritorial operation only if there exists a “territorial nexus” between the State and the subject matter of the legislation. That is, if there is sufficient nexus or connection between the State and the subject matter of the law which falls beyond the territory of the State, the law will be valid. The sufficiency of the nexus is to be seen on the basis of the test laid down by the Supreme Court in the State of Bombay v. R.M.D.C., A.I.R.1957 S.C. 699, according to which two conditions, must be fulfilled:

(a)the connection must be real and not illusory; and

(b)the liability sought to be imposed by that law must be pertinent to that connection.

If both the conditions are fulfilled by a law simultaneously then only it is valid otherwise not.

In the given situation, applying the doctrine laid down in State of Bombay v. R.M.D.C. (AIR 1957 SC 699), the Maharashtra law is valid as the majority of the newspaper’s activities such as revenue generation and participation in competitions took place within Maharashtra, thereby establishing a sufficient territorial nexus.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2025, Q. 1(a)(ii) (Syllabus 2022).

Procedurally, the Bills can be classified as:

1.Ordinary Bills

2.Money and Financial Bills

3.Ordinance Replacing Bill and

4.Constitution Amendment Bills.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2024, Q. 1(a)(iv) (Syllabus 2022).

The writ of Quo Warranto enables enquiry into the legality of the claim which a person asserts, to an office or franchise and to oust him from such position if he is a usurper. The holder of the office has to show to the court under what authority he holds the office. It is issued when:

(i)the office is public and of a substantive nature,

(ii)created by statute or by the Constitution itself, and

(iii)the respondent has asserted his claim to the office. It can be issued even though he has not assumed the charge of the office.

The fundamental basis of the proceeding of Quo Warranto is that the public has an interest to see that an unlawful claimant does not usurp a public office. It is a discretionary remedy which the court may grant or refuse.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2019, Q. 6A(iv) (Syllabus 2017).

Writ of Quo warranto The writ of quo warranto enables enquiry into the legality of the claim which a person asserts, to an office or franchise and to oust him from such position if he is a usurper. The holder of the office has to show to the court under what authority he holds the office. It is issued when:

(i)the office is of public and of a substantive nature,

(ii)created by statute or by the Constitution itself, and

(iii)the respondent has asserted his claim to the office. It can be issued even though he has not assumed the charge of the office.

The fundamental basis of the proceeding of quo warranto is that the public has an interest to see that an unlawful claimant does not usurp a public office. It is a discretionary remedy which the court may grant or refuse.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2024, Q. 2(b) (Syllabus 2017).