Q.1. What are the constitutional protection in respect of conviction for offence?

[Assam Judicial Service (Grade-III) Written Examination, 2011]

Ans. The Constitution of India guarantees various rights in which Article 20 deals with
protection in respect of conviction for offences as under:

1. Ex post facto law- Article 20 (1)

2. Double jeopardy-Article 20 (2)

3. Prohibition against self-incrimination-Article 20 (3)

An ex post facto law is a law which imposes penalties retrospectively. Article 20 (1) states that
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.

Article 20 (2) states that, no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than
once. Article 20 (2) is based on the rule of nemo debet vis vexari which means that no man should be
put twice in peril for the same offence. Sec. 300 of Cr.P.C. also protect us against double jeopardy but
Article 20 (2) is wider than section 300.

Article 20 (3) states that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself. The provision contained in this Article embodies the general principles of English and American
law that no one shall be compelled to give testimony which may expose him to prosecution for crime.

In M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300 the Supreme Court observed that this right embodies
the following essentials:

1. It is a right pertaining to a person who is accused of an offence.

2. It is protection against compulsion to be a witness.

3. It is a protection against such compulsion relating to his giving evidence against himself.

Sml. Selvi v. State of Karnataka AIR 2010 SC 1974 is a landmark case on this point where Supreme Court
declared unconstitutional conducting the NARCO, Brain Mapping and Polygraphy on the basis of Article
20 (3).

Q.2. Whether recommendation of the President is necessary in moving a Bill, if so, explain?

[Assam Judicial Service (Grade-III) Written Examination, 2011]

Ans. In general, there is no requirement of President’s recommendation for moving a Bill but there are
some circumstances in which recommendation of the President is necessary in moving a Bill. Such as
under Article 3 of the Indian Constitution Parliament may by law form a new State and alter the areas,
boundaries or names of existing States.

But no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the
recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area,
boundaries or name of any of the States, the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of
that State for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference or
within such further period as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has
expired.

Q.3. ln what cases does joint sitting of both the houses take place? Discuss briefly the special procedure
in respect to Money Bills.

[Assam Judicial Service (Grade-III) Written Examination, 20151]

Ans. The framers of the Constitution of India were fully aware about the situations of deadlock between
the upper house i.e. Rajya Sabha and the lower house i.e. Lok Sabha and accordingly they provided for
joint sittings of both the Houses to break the deadlock. In Constituent Assembly it was said that in a
Federal Constitution, the Upper House is composed of the representatives of the various units or states.

It is not like the House of Lords which is hereditary or which by its very character is conservative. Our
Upper House is elected by the representatives of the various States and therefore it is as representative
as the Lower House itself in a particular manner.

The object of providing an Upper House in the Centre is to see that the States voice or the voice of the
units is adequately represented. Therefore the third way of providing to resolve the deadlock is by Joint
session.

Now that is not a very ideal solution no doubt but it is a solution which is as good as possibly can be
conceived of. When both the Houses meet together it is possible that either by compromise they resolve
their differences or the majority of the Lower House will carry the day.

Article 108 of the Constitution provides that a Joint Session of the Parliament can be summoned by the
President of India in the following situations:

If after a Bill has been passed by one House and transmitted to the other House-

(a) The Bill is rejected by the other House; or

(b) The Houses have finally disagreed as to the amendments to be made in the Bill; or

(c) More than six months elapse from the date of the reception of the Bill by the other House without
the Bill being passed by it, the President may, unless the Bill has elapsed by reason of a dissolution of the
House of the People, notify to the Houses by message if they are sitting or by public notification if they
are not sitting, his intention to summon them to meet in a joint sitting for the purpose of deli berating
and voting on the Bill.
In calculating period of six months, those days are not considered when House is prorogued or
adjourned for more than four consecutive days.

The joint sitting of the Parliament is called by the President and is presided over by the Speaker of Lok
Sabha or in his absence by the Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha or in his absence, the Deputy-Chairman
of the Rajya Sabha.

The Constitution has specified that at a joint sitting, new amendments to the Bill cannot be proposed
except –

(1) Those amendments that have caused final disagreement between the Houses;

(2) Those amendments that might have become necessary due to the delay in the passage of the Bill.

Till date, the joint sessions of Indian Parliament have been called for only three times i.e. Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1960, Banking Service Commission Repeal Bill, 1977, and Prevention of Terrorism Act,
2002.

Money Bill and Constitution Amendment Bill are exception to joint sitting of Parliament.

Special procedure in respect of Money Bills is contained in Article 109 which states that a Money Bill
shall not be introduced in the Rajya Sabha. After a Money Bill has been passed by the Lok Sabha it shall
be transmitted to the Rajya Sabha for its recommendations and the Rajya Sabha shall within a period of
fourteen days from the date of its receipt of the Bill return the Bill to the Lok Sabha with its
recommendations and the Lok Sabha may thereupon either accept or reject all or any of the
recommendations of the Rajya Sabha.

Even if Rajya Sabha does not pass a money Bill within 14 days, it is deemed to have been passed by both
the Houses of Parliament after expiry of the above period. Therefore, the need to summon a joint
session does not arise in the case of Money Bill.

Q.4. Is the scope of Article 32 wider than that of Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Assign reasons
for your answer.

[Assam Judicial Service (Grade-III) Written Examination, 2006]

Ans. No, the scope of the provisions of Article 226 is wider than Article 32. The Writ Jurisdiction of
Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution for the violation of fundamental
rights guaranteed under Part – III of the Constitution.

Any provision in any Constitution for Fundamental Rights is meaningless unless there are adequate
safeguards to ensure enforcement of such provisions.

Since the reality of such rights is tested only through the judiciary, the safeguards assume even more
importance. Article 32 is referred to as the “Constitutional Remedy” for enforcement of Fundamental
Rights. This provision itself has been included in the Fundamental Rights and hence it cannot be denied
to any person.

Dr. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important one, without which the Constitution would be
reduced to nullity. It is also referred to as the heart and soul of the Constitution. By including Article 32 in
the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has been made the protector and guarantor of these Rights.

Article 226 empowers High Court to issue certain writs for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. A High Court cannot issue a writ to another High Court,
nor can one Bench of a High Court issue a writ to a different Bench of the High Court; much less can the
writ jurisdiction of a High Court be invoked to seek issuance of a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court.
The High Courts are not constituted as inferior courts in our constitutional scheme.

Thus, it is evident from the above that Article 32 is applicable only in case of enforcing fundamental
rights but Article 226 is applied for other constitutional rights also including fundamental rights.
Moreover, Article 32 may be suspended but there is no provision to suspend Article 226.

Q.5. Write short note on Supervisory Jurisdiction of the High Court.

[Assam Judicial Service (Grade-III) Written Examination, 2013]

Ans. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court is contained in Article 227 of the
Constitution. A perusal of Article 227 of the Constitution would indicate that the power of
superintendence conferred on the High Court is a power that is confined to courts and tribunals in
relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.

The power of superintendence conferred upon every High Court by Article 227 is a supervisory
jurisdiction intended to ensure that subordinate courts and tribunals act within the limits of their
authority and according to law.

The jurisdiction under Article 227 on the other hand is not original nor is it appellate. This jurisdiction of
superintendence under Article 227 is for both administrative and judicial superintendence. Court’s
power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be curtailed by any statute. It has been declared a
part of the basic structure of the Constitution by the Constitution Bench of this Court in L. Chandra
Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261.