Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 28

Academic Year 2016-17

Semester III
Teaching Plan

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-I

By

Satya Prakash
Sudhir Verma

Symbiosis Law School, Noida


Symbiosis International University, Pune

July – October 2016


1. INTRODUCTION

The law of the constitution is, in a manner of speaking, in part aspirational


statement as much as it is in no less part ground rules for rules. Insofar as
constitutions are organic, living documents, the former part is no mere flight of
fantasy but substratum to the topsoil of the latter. It is the underlying spirit that
animates constitutions. In our context this spirit, invoked by the Supreme
Court’s séances, has often, perhaps grudgingly, had to materialize. The Court
has anointed it ‘basic structure’, and to believe the Court – the Court being the
chosen Medium, there really is no choice in the matter – the ‘basic structure’,
much in the fashion of spirits, is nebulous and ineffable, enduring yet
unchanging and eternal. To take away from it is to destroy the Constitution. And
that, at least in principle, is impossible without concomitantly destroying the
very idea of India. Speaking legally, India is what the Constitution makes it.
The above trope is employed with a view to impress upon you the significance of
the portion to be covered this semester. You see, for most part we shall be
dealing with the soul of our Constitution. Since we are going to be studying rule
of law, separation of powers, civil liberties, amendability etc, all of which
principles inform ‘basic structure’ in varying degrees, it is no exaggeration to
think of Constitutional law -1 as its spirit. A sound grasp of the same, needless
to say, will hold one in good stead vis a vis the Indian legal system as a whole.
Having emphasized the importance of the course here follows a brief account of
why constitutions are and what they do. To begin with, a constitution is the
fundamental law of superior obligation, the source from which lesser laws draw
their validity. It is both a political as well as legal document. For instance the
Indian Constitution is political in the sense of formally birthing this political
entity of India and endowing it with political DNA; say making it a secular,
socialist, democratic republic with a unique federal structure. It is statutory in so
far as it contains rules for the making, amending, repeal and enforcement of
rules by the various state agencies it creates directly or by implication. In doing
so it legally limits the extent of governmental authority and power. Any
transgression renders the exercise thereof invalid. Often enough these
limitations are in the form of civil liberties such as the right to life and personal
liberty, equality, free expression etc. But constitutional limitations have other
forms too. For instance in terms of scope of authority, the Constitution lists out
specific subjects in the Union and State list giving the state and union
governments exclusive control over discrete areas of activity. For example
policing is a state subject whereas defence is not. Sometimes, when the manner
of doing something is stipulated the constraint is procedural. Therefore in its
essence the Constitution is a yoke around political power, the reins of which vest
with the Judiciary. Given that, the significance of an independent judiciary
becomes obvious. Also, perhaps in its most overarching sense, it is the last
bastion of control against that scourge of democracies: majoritarianism.

2. LEARNING OBJECTIVES (Knowledge, Skills and Outcomes)

A. Knowledge
a. To inculcate the skill of reading the Constitution.
b. To identify the fundamental policy choices incorporated in the
Constitution.
c. To examine the historical evolution of constitutional doctrines,
standards, and tests.
d. To familiarise oneself with the most prominent aspects of civil liberty
i.e. equality and law of freedom of speech and religious freedom in
India;
e. To get the accustomed to the peculiar nature of legal arguments in
constitutional controversies based on the constellation of constitutional
values and principles enunciated in Supreme Court majority and
minority opinions.
f. To develop a critical understanding of the interpretations of
constitutional provisions offered by Apex Court in India.
g. To understand and articulate the internal logic of an “argument,” and
whether it is consistent or inconsistent with similar “arguments”
previously made.
h. To recognize and articulate the strengths and weaknesses of an
“argument” independent of one’s level of agreement with it.
i. To articulate opinions on significant, vital, controversial and current
constitutional issues.
j. To understand contemporary judicial thinking on civil liberties in the
era of judicial activism.
k. To understand practical application of Constitutional Law principles to
hypothetical or real controversies, particularly through problem-
solving—applying the legal principles enunciated in Supreme Court
cases to particular hypothetical or real lower-court cases.
l. To develop enhanced skills regards constitutional interpretation in
general.

B. Outcomes

C. Final Outcome
University Assessment is by compulsory coursework examination (100%)
(Including Internal Assessment 40% and External Assessment 60%) by the
Symbiosis International, Pune.

3. LECTURES

A. Times and Attendance

Three lecture times have been set aside for this course for each division. Verify
it from the timetable assigned for each division. Reading material and relevant
references will be made available in “The Library‟ on “Curiosity‟ Portal at
www.curiosity.symlaw.edu.in. as well as announced in class. To facilitate your
understanding of these lectures, you should always read at least the relevant
pages of suggested readings in advance of each lecture.

As per Symbiosis International University Regulations, please note,


“Students are expected to attend minimum 75% of all scheduled
sessions and other forms of instruction as defined by the programme of
study.”

Once in a week I will upload a “Cases and Open problem/question on ‘Banyan


Tree’ @Curiosity and I will be expecting your response/ answer/ reply within
stipulated time given. Those, who will respond/answer/ reply within stipulated
time given will be granted attendance for one lecture. This activity is
compulsory for all and attendance so granted will form part of the total
attendance.
The student will not be eligible to appear for the examination if he / she fail to
put in the required attendance. The Students can update themselves of their
attendance daily online in “Attendance‟ on “Curiosity‟ Portal at
www.curiosity.symlaw.edu.in.

B. Scheme and Structure

Module1:
Introduction to Constitutionalism and Fundamental Rights.
1) Need and uses of constitution.
2) Whether a constitution should contain a chapter on fundamental rights.
3) Constitutionalism: Idea and Significance.
a.Contribution of Natural Law to the idea of Constitutionalism.
b.Contribution of English Common Law to the idea of Constitutionalism.
4) Introduction to the History and Significance of the Fundamental Rights in
India.
5) Philosophical Foundations of the Fundamental Rights.

Readings:
Read the Constituent Assembly Debates (Vol. III, pp. 379-421 & 431-57,
465-530)
Constitution of India
B. Shiva Rao: The Framing of India’s Constitution Vol. 5, pp.170-179.
B.N. Rau: The Making of Indian Constitution.
Ashish Caugh: Fundamental Rights: Vertical or Horizontal? (2005)7 SCC p. 9-
18
Bruce Ackerman: The Rise of World Constitutionalism. Yale Law School-
Occasional Papers, 1996.
Granville Austin: Working A Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience.
Oxford University Press (2002) (pp. 123,278,492 and 516)
Glanville Austin: The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. Oxford
University Press, New Delhi (1998). Chapters 8 to 10.
H.M. Seervai: Constitutional Law of India: A Critical Commentary Vol.1(p.
349-399)
Karl Lowenstein: Political Power and the Governmental Process. The
University of Chicago Press 1965 (Chapter V)
Sudhir Krishnaswamy: Democracy and Constitutionalism in India: A study of
the Basic Structure Doctrine. Oxford University Press
T. M. Cooley: A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations, Hindustan Law
Book Company, Calcutta, 2005.
Upendra Baxi: Constitutionalism as Site for State Formative Practices. 21
Cardozo Law Review.

Cases:

Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845;


Golaknath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC
Keshvanand Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC
Minerva Mills Ltd v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789;
Waman Rao v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 271;

Module 2:

State and State Action (Articles 12 and 13)

1) State: Purpose and Definition under Article 12.


2) Interpretation made by the Supreme Court.
3) Other Authorities: Meaning and Scope. Is the Judiciary State?
4) Redefinition, if required?
5) State Action (Article 13: Abundant Caution)
6) Doctrine of Eclipse and Waiver.
7) Doctrine of Severability and Colourable Legislation.
8) Presumption of Constitutionality.
9) Definition of Law in Article 13.
10) Relationship with Personal Laws/Constitutional Amendments/Law
declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141.

Readings:
Read the Constituent Assembly Debates (Vol. III pp. 410-411 & Vol. VII, pp.
607-612)
Constitution of India
B. Shiva Rao: The Framing of India’s Constitution (5 Vols.).
145th Report of the Law Commission of India on Article 12 and Public
Undertakings.
B.N. Rau: The Making of Indian Constitution.
D.J. De: The Constitution of India. Asia Law House, p.148-177-196
Granville Austin: Working of a Democratic Constitution: The Indian
Experience. Oxford University Press (2002) (pp. 123,278,492 and 516)
Glanville Austin: The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. Oxford
University Press, New Delhi (1998). Chapters 8 to 10.
H.M. Seervai: Constitutional Law of India: A Critical Commentary Vol.3 (p.
349-399 & 400-434)
R.K. Choudhury & T. G. Choudhoury: Judicial Reflections on Justice
Bhagwati; p. 128-138

Cases:

A.R. Antuley v. R.S. Nayak (1988)2SCC 602;


Electricity Board, Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal AIR 1967 SC 1857;
Ujjan Bai v. State of U.P. AIR 1962 SC 1621;
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India, AIR
1979 SC 1628;
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib AIR 1981 SC 487;
Central Inland Water Transport Corp. V. Brajonath Ganguly (1986)3 SCC
156.
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002)5 SCC
111
Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1975 SC 1329
Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P. ( 1963)1 SCR 778
Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 2677
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar AIR 1952 SC 75;
Bashshar Nath v, C.I.T AIR 1959 SC 149;
State of Bombay v RMDC AIR 1957 SC 628;
Gajpati Narayan Dev v State of Orissa;
Bhikaji v. State of M.P.AIR 1955 SC 781;
Deep Chand v. State of U.P. AIR 1959 SC 648;
State of Gujrat v. Sri Ambika Mills AIR 1974 SC 1300;
Dulare Lodh v. IIIrd Additional judge Kanpur AIR 1984 SC 1260;
Kameshwar v State of Bihar, AIR 1965 575
Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v Bank of Commerce (AIR 1947 PC 60);

Module 3:

Right to Equality: Part 1 (Article 14)

1) Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause: “Equality before the
law” and “Equal Protection of Laws” / Rule of Law
2) Separate But Equal
3) Proving Unconstitutional Discrimination
4) Doctrine of Reasonable Classification
5) Doctrine of Arbitrary State Action
6) Rights of non-citizen under the equal protection clause
7) Protection Against Arbitrary Use of Discretion

Readings:

Read the Constituent Assembly Debates (Vol. III, pp. 457, (Vol. VII, pp. 797-
8, 842-857, 859, 999-1001)
Constitution of India
B. Shiva Rao: The Framing of India’s Constitution Vol. 5, pp.170-179
B.N. Rau: The Making of Indian Constitution.
D.J. De: The Constitution of India. Asia Law House, p.198 onwards
Granville Austin: Working A Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience.
Oxford UniversityPress (2002) (pp. 123,278,492 and 516)
Glanville Austin: The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. Oxford
University Press, New Delhi (1998). Chapters 8 to 10.
H.M. Seervai: Constitutional Law of India: A Critical Commentary
Vol.1(p.435-550)
P. Ishwara Bhat: Fundamental Rights. Eastern Book House;p. 90-161
R.K. Choudhury & T. G. Choudhoury: Judicial Reflections on Justice
Bhagwati; p. 85-89
Salman Khurshid: The Concept of Equality (1984)1 SCC p. 1-6

Cases:

Ram Krishna Dalmiya v. Justice Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538;


Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299;
R.K. Garg v. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 2138;
Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co. V. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. (1983) 1 SCC 147;
Air India v. Narges Mirza, AIR 1981SC 1829;
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555;
D.S. Nakara v. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 130;
K.A. Abbas v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 481;
Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983SC 473;
Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654;
BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 350;
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 663;
In Re Special Court Bill, 1978, AIR 1979;
Kathi Ranning v. State of Saurastra, AIR 1952 SC 123;
A.K.Kraipak v. Union of India; In Re Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1958 SC 956
Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689

Module 4:

Right to Equality: Part 2 (Articles 15 and 16)


1) No Discrimination on the Grounds of Religion, Sex, Caste etc.
2) Positive discrimination/Affirmative Action
a.Women and Children
b.Socially and Educationally Backward Classes
c.Reservation in Admissions in Educational Institutions
d.Reservation in Super-speciality Courses
3) Equality of Opportunity in the Matters of Employment
4) Reservation in Services
5) Reservation for Backward Classes: The Mandal Commission Case
6) Concept of Creamy Layer
7) Reservation in Promotion/Seniority

Readings:

Read the Constituent Assembly Debates (Vol. VII, p. 650-660)


Constitution of India
B. Shiva Rao: The Framing of India’s Constitution Vol. 5, pp.170-179
Ashok Chandra: Other Backward Classes: Not Caste but Economic and Other
Basis ( 1984) 3 SCC p. 22-31
Anirudh Krishnan & Harini Sudersan: Law of Reservation & Anti-
Discrimination. LexisNexis-Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur. 2008
B.N. Rau: The Making of Indian Constitution.
D.J. De: The Constitution of India. Asia Law House, p.417 onwards
Granville Austin: Working of A Democratic Constitution: The Indian
Experience. Oxford University Press (2002) (pp. 123,278,492 and 516)
Glanville Austin: The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. Oxford
University Press, New Delhi (1998). Chapters 8 to 10.
H.M. Seervai: Constitutional Law of India: A Critical Commentary
Vol.1(p.550-692)
Thomas E. Weisskopf: Affirmative Action in United States and India,
Routledge Taylor & francis Group

Cases:

State of Madras v. Champkan Dorairajan, AIR 1951 SC 226;


Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 321;
M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 649;
Chitralekha v. State of Mysore, AIR 1964 SC 1823
T. Devadasan v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 179;
State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas;(1976)2 SCC 310
State of M.P. v. Nivedita Jain AIR 1981 SC 2045;
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477 (The Mandal Commission
Case);
Indira Shawney v. Union of India, (1999) Supp 5 SCC 557 (559);
Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1999)7 SCC 120
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481
E. V. Chinnaian v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2005)1 SCC 394
P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 SCC 537;
Ashok Kumar Thakur v. State of Bihar (2008)6 SCC 1.

Module 5

Right to Freedom (Article 19)

1) Freedom of Speech and Expression


a) Philosophical Justification of the Freedom
b) Importance of Freedom of Speech and Expression
c) Freedom of Press
d) Right to Information
e) Reasonable Restrictions
2) Freedom to Assemble and form Association
a) Philosophical Justification and Importance of this freedom
b) Right of Government Servant to form Association
c) Reasonable Restriction
Freedom of Movement and Residence
a) Importance of this Freedom
b) Reasonable Restrictions
4) Freedom to Carry on Trade and Commerce
a) State Monopoly
b) Reasonable Restrictions

Readings
Read the Constituent Assembly Debates (Vol. III, pp. 445-456, (Vol. VII, p.
730-760)
Constitution of India
B. Shiva Rao: The Framing of India’s Constitution Vol. 5, pp.179-211
B.N. Rau: The Making of Indian Constitution.
D.J. De: The Constitution of India. Asia Law House, p.819 onwards
Granville Austin: Working A Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience.
Oxford
University Press (2002) (pp. 123,278,492 and 516)
Glanville Austin: The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. Oxford
University Press, New
Delhi (1998). Chapters 8 to 10.
H.M. Seervai: Constitutional Law of India: A Critical Commentary
Vol.1(p.693-947)
H.R. Khanna: Freedom of Expression with Particular Reference to Freedom of
the Media,(1982)2SCC p. 1-9
P. Ishwara Bhat: Fundamental Rights. Eastern Book House; p. 353-407
P.K. Tripathi: India’s Experiment in Freedom of Speech: The First
Amendment and Thereafter (Spotlights on Constitutional Interpretation),
p.255-290
R.K. Choudhury & T. G. Choudhoury: Judicial Reflections on Justice
Bhagwati; p. 39-92 & 139-163

Cases:

Brij Bhusan v. Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129


Express Newspapers v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 578
Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 554
Sakal Papers v. Union of India AIR 1962 SC 305
O.K. Ghosh v. E.X. Joseph, AIR 1963 SC 812
Kharag Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 1295
K.A. Abbas v. Union of India AIR 1971 SC 481
Bennett Coleman v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106;
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
Indian Express Newspapers(Bombay)Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1986 SC
515
Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, AIR 1987 SC 748;
Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (1994)2 SCC 434
New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254
Leonard Hector v. Attorney General of Antiqua and Berbuda,(1990)2AC 312
Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspaper Ltd. (1993)2 WLR 449
R. Rajgopal v. State of Tamilnadu, AIR 1995 SC 264
Bharat Kumar K. Palicha v. State of Kerala, AIR 1997 Ker.291
Communist Party of India v. Bharat Kumar, AIR 1998 SC 184

Module 6

Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Articles 20, 21 and 22)

1) Article 20
a) Protection Against Ex-Post Facto Law
b) Protection Against Double Jeopardy
c) Protection Against Self-Incrimination
Constitutional Validity of Narco-Analysis Test
2) Article 21
a) The Right to Life and
b) Due Process: Substantive Due Process and Procedural Due Process
with reference to the fourteenth amendment of American Constitution
vis-a-vis Procedure Established by Law
c) Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Constitutionality of Capital Punishment
d) Right to Die
e) The Right of Privacy
f) The Right to Abortion
g) Decriminalization of Homosexuality
3) Rights of Accused and Persons Detained under Preventive Detention Laws (
Article 22)

Readings:

Read the Constituent Assembly Debates (Vol. VII- p. 53-54, 848-852, 1000-
1001)
Constitution of India
B. Shiva Rao: The Framing of India’s Constitution Vol. 5, pp.179-211
180th Report of the Law Commission of India on Self Incrimination
Abhinav Chandrachud: The Substantive Right to Privacy: Tracing the
Doctrinal Shadows of the Indian Constitution.(2006)3 SCC p. 31-50
Ashish Caugh: A Reassessment of The Self-Incrimination Clause(2006)8 SCC
p.19-32
B.N. Rau: The Making of Indian Constitution.
D.J. De: The Constitution of India. Asia Law House, p.1085 onwards
Dr. Parmanand Singh: Equality, Reservation and Discrimination in India,
Deep and Deep Pub. New Delhi.
Granville Austin: Working of A Democratic Constitution: The Indian
Experience. Oxford University Press (2002) (pp. 123,278,492 and 516)
Glanville Austin: The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. Oxford
University Press, New Delhi (1998). Chapters 8 to 10.
H.M. Seervai: Constitutional Law of India: A Critical Commentary
Vol.2(p.1088-1258)
Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee: Article 21 and Due Process and “Exclusionary
Rule of Evidence. (1983)3SCC p.32-40
P. Ishwara Bhat: Fundamental Rights. Eastern Book House;p. 279-338
P.K. Tripathi: The Fiasco of Overruling, A.K. Gopalan, AIR 1990 (J) 1.
P.K. Tripathi: Protection of Personal Liberty under the Indian Constitution.
(Spotlights on Constitutional Interpretation), p.161-167
P.K. Tripathi: Preventive Detention: The Indian Experience (Spotlights on
Constitutional Interpretation), p.187-212
R.K. Choudhury & T. G. Choudhoury: Judicial Reflections on Justice
Bhagwati; p. 93-101
Solil Paul: Was Due Process Due?—A Critical Study of the Projection of
“Reasonableness” in Article 21 Since Maneka Gandhi. (1983)1SCC p.1-10

Cases:

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, [1950] SCR 88


Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802;
Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 1986 SC 494;
Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Keral, AIR 1987 SC 748;
Civil Rights Committee v. Union of India, AIR 1983 Kant 85;
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610;
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC
746;
Gaurav Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 3012;
Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 1378;
Hussainara v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360 ;
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1446;
J.P. Unikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 2178;
Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, AIR 1973 SC 2684;
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295;
Khatri(II) v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 928;
M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 1548;
Nandini v. Dani, AIR 1978 SC 1025;
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3751;
National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, AIR 1996
SC 1234;
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960;
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180;
P. Rathinam Nagbhusan Patnaik v. Union of India, JT (1994) 3 SC 392;
Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2039;
Paschim Bangal Khet Mazdoor Society v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1996 SC
2426;
People Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568;
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568;
People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Police Commissioner, (1989) 4 SCC
730;
Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. Rotas Industries Ltd., AIR 1990 SC 481;
Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1086;
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1989
SC 594;
Saheli v. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1954 SC 513;
Satwant v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 266;
Sebastian Hongray v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 571;
Sheela Barse v. Secretary, Children Aid Society, AIR 1983 SC 378;
Sheela Barse v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 1773;
Smt. Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC
Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja, AIR 2003 SC 2562;

We will also discuss cases decided by US Supreme Court and European Court of
Human Rights. For example: Francis v. Resweber, Ingraham v. Wright, Furman
v. Georgia, Hudson v. McMillan, and Roper v. Simmons. Meyer v. Nebraska,
Griswold v. Connecticut, Stanley v. Georgia, Ravin v. State, Kelley v. Johnson,
Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health, and Lawrence v. Texas. Roe v. Wade
and Planned Parenthood v. Casey etc.

Module 7

Secularism and Freedom of Religion (Articles 25 and 26)

1) Secularism as Basic Structure.


2) Secularism contrasted with Right to Religion
3) Restrictions on Religious Freedom
4) Conversion and Anti-Conversion Laws
5) Uniform Civil Code

Readings:

Read the Constituent Assembly Debates (Vol. VII p. 831-837)


Constitution of India
B. Shiva Rao: the Framing of India’s Constitution Vol. 5, pp.257-272.
B.N. Rau: The Making of Indian Constitution.
D.J. De: The Constitution of India. Asia Law House, p.1413-1446
Justice Dharmadhikari: Right of Freedom of Religion and Faith: India’s Legal
Tradition.(2007)1SCC p.8-13
Granville Austin: Working A Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience.
Oxford University Press (2002) (pp. 123,278,492 and 516)
Glanville Austin: The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. Oxford
University Press, New Delhi (1998). Chapters 8 to 10.
H.M. Seervai: Constitutional Law of India: A Critical Commentary
Vol.2(p.1259-1308)
Harry E. Groves: Religious Freedom,4 JILI, 191 (1962)
P. Ishwara Bhat: Fundamental Rights. Eastern Book House; p. 408-450
P.K. Tripathi: Secularism and Judicial Review (Spotlights on Constitutional
Interpretation), p.100-125
V.K. Sinha: Dr. Radhakrishnan in Secularism in India (1968) p.127

Cases:

Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 908


Gulam Abbas v. State of U.P. AIR 1981 SC 2198
Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, AIR 1987 SC 748
S.R. Bommai v Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918
M.Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 604
Lily Thomas v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650
Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R.M.C. Welfare Association, AIR
2000 SC 2773

Module 8

Cultural and Educational Rights of the Minorities (Articles 29 and 30)

1) Definition of Minority
2) Why they Need Special Attention?
3) Rights of Minorities to Establish and Administer Educational Institutions:
Problems of Affiliation, Admission and Reservation
4) Relation between Articles 29 and 30

Readings:

Read the Constituent Assembly Debates (Vol. III, pp. 497-504, (Vol. V, p.
396-402, Vol. VII, pp. 895, 897-9)
Constitution of India
B. Shiva Rao: The Framing of India’s Constitution Vol. 5, pp.272-281
B.N. Rau: The Making of Indian Constitution.
D.J. De: The Constitution of India. Asia Law House, p.1472-1547
Granville Austin: Working A Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience.
Oxford University Press (2002) (pp. 123,278,492 and 516)
Glanville Austin: The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. Oxford
University Press, New Delhi (1998). P.50-113
H.M. Seervai: Constitutional Law of India: A Critical Commentary Vol.2
(p.1309-1353)
P. Ishwara Bhat: Fundamental Rights. Eastern Book House; p. 451-500
Cases:

State of Bombay v. Bombay Educational Society AIR 1954 SC 561


In Re Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1958 SC 956
S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India AIR 1968 SC 662
Rev. Father W. Proost v. State of Bihar, AIR 1969 SC 465
State of Kerala v. Mother Provincial, AIR 1970 SC 2079
S.K. Patro v. State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 259
D. A.V. College, Jullundur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 1737
Ahmadabad St. Xavier’s College v. State of Gujarat AIR 1974 SC 389
Managing Board M.T.M. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1984 SC 1757
St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi AIR 1992 SC 1630
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481
Islamic Academy of Edn. & Anr. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors, AIR 2003 SC
3724
P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 SCC 537;

Module 9

Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32)

1) Right to move the Supreme Court


2) Obligation or Discretion of the Supreme Court to Provide Remedy
3) Article 32 contrasted with Article 226
4) Kinds of Remedies under Article 32
a. Writs: Mandamus, Habeas Corpus, Quo Warranto, Prohibition and
Certiorari
b. Directions
c. Order
d. Compensation
5) Public Interest Litigation
6) Judicial Activism

Readings:

Read the Constituent Assembly Debates (Vol. III, pp. 520-2, (Vol. VII, p.
933-950)
Constitution of India
B. Shiva Rao:The Framing of India’s Constitution, Vol. 5, pp.300-319.
B.N. Rau: The Making of Indian Constitution.
D.J. De: The Constitution of India. Asia Law House, p.1472-1547
Granville Austin: Working A Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience.
Oxford University Press (2002) (pp. 123,278,492 and 516)
Glanville Austin: The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. Oxford
University Press, New Delhi (1998). P.50-113
G. Vethirajulu: Article 32 and the Remedy of Compensation. (2004) 7 SCC
p.49-60
H.M. Seervai: Constitutional Law of India: A Critical Commentary
Vol.2(p.1309-1353)
Nirmalendu Bikash Rakshit: Right to Constitutional Remedy. Economic and
Political Weekly(1999) August 21-28
P. Ishwara Bhat: Fundamental Rights. Eastern Book House; p. 451-500

Cases:

State of Madras v. V. G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196


Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802;
P. L. Lakhanpal v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 908
Lallubhai . Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 728
Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011

Module10

Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties


1) Nature and Object
2) Directive Principles vis a vis Fundamental Rights
3) Importance of Fundamental Duties

Readings:

Read the Constituent Assembly Debates (Vol. VII, p. 41-44 & Vol. V, pp. 361-
78)
Constitution of India
B. Shiva Rao: The Framing of India’s Constitution, Vol. 5, pp. 319-334
B.N. Rau: The Making of Indian Constitution.
D.J. De: The Constitution of India. Asia Law House, p. 1611-1616
Glanville Austin: The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. Oxford
University Press, New Delhi (1998). P. 75-84 & 113
H.M. Seervai: Constitutional Law of India: A Critical Commentary Vol.2
(p.1921-2020)
M.P. Singh: The Statics and Dynamics of the Fundamental Rights and
Directive Principles-A Human Right’s Perspective. (2003) 5 SCC p.1-14
P.K. Tripathi: Directive Principles of State Policy: The Lawyer’s Approach to
Them Hitherto, Parochial, Injurious and Unconstitutional (Spotlights on
Constitutional Interpretation), p.291-322
R.K. Choudhury & T. G. Choudhoury: Judicial Reflections on Justice
Bhagwati; p. 117-125
Videh Upadhyay: Public Interest Litigation in India. LexisNexis,
Butterworths, p. 103-138

Cases:

State of Madras v. Champkan Dorairajan, AIR 1951 SC 226;


Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1951 SC;
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 455;
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845;
Balmadies Plantation Ltd. v. State of Tamilnadu,(1972)2 SCC 133;
Excel Wear v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 25;
R.C.Cooper v. Union of India; 1970 AIR SC 1318
Madhav Rao Schidia v. Union of India; (1971) 1 SCC 85
Keshavananada Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
Minerva Mills Ltd v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789;
Waman Rao v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 271;
I.R.Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu& Others, AIR 2007 SC.

Module 11

Amendment: Scope, Rules and Procedure thereof (Article 368)


1) Nature of the Amending Power: Plenary, Legislative and Constituent
2) Kinds of Procedure
3) Legislative and Judicial Developments vis a vis Parliament’s Power to
Amend
4) Doctrine of Basic Structure: Origins to Present Status

Readings:

Read the Constituent Assembly Debates (Vol. VII, p. 322-323 & Vol. IX, p.
1660)
Constitution of India
P.K. Tripathi: Kesavananda Bharti v.State of Kerala: Who Wins, (1974)1 SCC
1
Upendra Baxi: The Constitutional Quicksands of Kesavananda Bharti and the
25th Constitutional Amendment. (1974)1 SCC 45
H.M. Seervai: Constitutional Law of India: A Critical Commentary Vol.3
D.D.Basu: Constitution of India
Granville Austin: Working A Democratic Constitution: The Indian
Experience. Oxford University Press (2002) (pp. 123,278,492 and 516)

Cases:
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 455
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845
Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 1461
Kesavananada Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Nath, AIR 1975 SC 2299
Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789
Waman Rao v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 271
S.P. Sampat Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 386
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, JT Vol.II, 8(1994) 239
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125
I. R. Coelho v. State of T.N. (2007) 2 SCC
C. Lecture Outline:

Week Lecture Topics

Lecture-1 Topic 1: Preview of the syllabus


Lecture-2
Week – 01: Topic 2: Teaching plan
04/07/16 Lecture-3
Topic 3: Introduction to the subject
Topic 4: Constitutionalism, Contribution of theoretical
Lecture-4
currents
Week – 02: Lecture-5
11/07/16 Lecture-6 Topic 5: Significance of civil liberties
Topic 6: Philosophical foundations of civil liberties
Topic 7: ‘State’ and ‘Other Authorities’: Definition and
Interpretation
Week – 03: Lecture-7
18/07/16 Lecture-8 Topic 8: Sate Action: Doctrine of Eclipse and Waiver

Lecture-9 Topic 9: Severability and Colourable Legislation

Lecture-10 Topic 10: Equality: Philosophical Foundations, Levels of


Lecture-11 Scrutiny
Week – 04:
25/07/16 Lecture-12 Topic 11: Reasonable Classification

Topic 12: Arbitrariness

Lecture-13 Topic 13: Affirmative Action, Reservations in Education.


Lecture-14
Week – 05: Topic 14: Equality of Opportunity in matters of
01/08/16 Lecture-15 Employment, Reservation in Services.

Topic 15: Reservation of Backward Classes, Mandal


Commission Case, Concept of Creamy Layer

Lecture-16 Topic 16: Freedom of Speech and Expression


Lecture-17
Week – 06: Topic 17: Freedom of Press, Right to Information and
08/08/16 Lecture-18 Reasonable Restrictions

Topic 18: Freedom of Press, Right to Information and


Reasonable Restrictions

Topic 19: Other Freedoms: Assemble and Associate,


Lecture-19
Week – 07: Movement and Residence and Trade and Commerce
Lecture-20
15/08/16 Topic 20: Ex-Post Facto Law, Double Jeopardy and Self
Lecture-21
Incrimination
Topic 21: Right To Life: Substantive and Procedural Due
Process
Lecture-22 Topic 22: Right To Life: Substantive and Procedural Due
Lecture-23
Process
Week – 08: Lecture-24 Topic 23: Right to Die, Privacy and Abortion,
22/08/16
Decriminalization of homosexuality
Topic 24: Right to Die, Privacy and Abortion,
Decriminalization of homosexuality

Lecture-25 Topic 25: Rights of Accused under Preventive Detention


Lecture-26
Week – 09: Lecture-27 Topic 26: Constitutionality of Preventive Detention Laws.
29/08/16 Topic 27: Constitutionality of Preventive Detention Laws.

Lecture-28 Topic 28: U.S and ECHR case law


Lecture-29
Week – 10: Lecture-30 Topic 29: U.S and ECHR case law
05/09/16
Topic 30: Minority: Definition. Need for Special Attention

Lecture-31 Topic 31: Right to Establish and Administer Educational


Lecture-32 Institutions
Week – 11:
05 Lecture-33 Topic 32: : Right to Establish and Administer Educational
12/09/16 Institutions

Topic 33: Right to Move the Supreme Court

Lecture-34 Topic 34: Right to Move the Supreme Court


Lecture-35
Week – 12: Topic 35: Article 32 Contrasted with 226
19/09/16 Lecture-36
Topic 36: Article 32 Contrasted with 226

Lecture-37 Topic 37: Kinds of Writs


Lecture-38
Week – 13: Topic 38: Kinds of Writs
26/09/16 Lecture-39
Topic 39: Public Interest Litigation and Judicial Activism

Lecture-40 Topic 40: Public Interest Litigation and Judicial Activism


Lecture-41
Week – 14: Topic 41: Nature and Object of Directive Principles
03/10/16 Lecture-42
Topic 42: Importance of Fundamental Duties

Lecture-43 Topic 43: Nature of Amending Power


Lecture-44
Week – 15: Topic 44: Procedures for Amendment
10/10/16 Lecture-45
Topic 45: Parliament’s Power to Amend
Lecture-46 Topic 46: Parliament’s Power to Amend
Lecture-47
Week – 16: Topic 47: Doctrine of Basic Structure
17/10/16 Lecture-48
Topic 48: Doctrine of Basic Structure

Lecture-49 Topic 49:Revision


Lecture-50
Week – 17: Topic 50: Revision
24/10/16 Lecture-51
Topic 51: Revision

4. READING AND MATERIALS

 Law of the Constitution 1

A. Supplementary Readings:

 Asim Pandya: Writs and Other Remedies, Lexix Nexis: Butterworths Wadhwa,
Nagpur.
 Asbjorn Eide, Catarina Krause and Allan Rosas: Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
 A.V. Dicey: An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution.
Universal Law Publishing Co.
 Chemerinsky: Constitutional Law: ASPEN Publishers 2005.
 Donald P. Kommers, John E. Finn and Gary J. Jacobsohn, Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers.
 Durga Das Basu: Constitutional Law of India. Butterworth LexisNexis 2009.
 Ellis Sandoz: The Roots of Liberty, Liberty Fund Indianapolis. 2008
 John Macdonald QC, Ross Crail and Clive H. Jones: The Law of Freedom of
Information, Oxford Press.
 M.R. Mallick: Writs: Law and Practice. Eastern Law House
 Nicholas Tsagourias: Transnational Constitutionalism: International and
European Perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
 P. Ishwara Bhat: Fundamental Rights: A Study of Their Relationship. Eastern
Law House.
 Richard A. Epstein: Economics of Constitutional Law (2 Vols.) An Elgar Reference
Collection.
 Tony Blackshield & George Williams: Australian Constitutional Law and Theory.
The Federation Press.
 T. M. Cooley: A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations, Hindustan Law Book
Company, Calcutta, 2005.
Thomas M. Cooley: The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United
States of America, Hindustan Law Book Company

B. Prescribed Legislations

The Constitution of India


Note:
 The above list is indicative and not exhaustive.
 Earlier editions of a number of the above texts might also be available
and can be consulted once account is taken of their datedness,
particularly as to applicable case law.

5. ASSESSMENT: COURSEWORK = 100%

You will be examined in this course by Internal (40%) and External Assessment
(60%) format. Internal examination will be conducted for 40 marks. It will include
two tutorials (10 marks each) and a Research Project (20 marks). The Symbiosis
International University will conduct external written examination for 60 marks at
the end of the semester. It consists of ten objectives, 2 mark each (20 marks) and
4 subjective/cases and open problems/questions 10 Marks each with an alternative
(40 marks).

6. PROJECT/TUTORIAL

A. Project/Tutorial Time table:

There will be two tutorials. The first tutorial will be a theoretical question to judge
your understanding and knowledge of constitutional law. Learners will not be
allowed to refer to class-notes, reading-material as well as text books. The second
tutorial shall be a problem-based question to test how you apply your knowledge of
constitutional law to a given case situation. You will be allowed to refer to your
class notes or books in the second tutorial. Each tutorial will carry 10 marks each
(Total=20 marks). Each learner will attempt it on both occasions.

In addition, you will be required to do a project. Topics will be assigned to students


later. The project format is given in Annexure A. Plagiarism, if detected, will entail
outright disqualification and a consequent loss of 10 marks. While learners may well
discuss and consult with one another, like submissions will be rejected.

The timetable of the tutorials and Project is as follows:

Tutorial:

Date
Tutorial Test Result Topic

Date: August Date: August


First Modules 1-4
05, 2016 12, 2016

Date: Date:
Second September September Modules 4-8
23, 2016 30, 2016
Project Assignments:

Submission
Interim Final
submission submission Result
Assignment

Date:
Date: July 18, October
2016 Date: Date: 08, 2016
August 16, September
2016 30, 2016

Discussion:
Constitutional Law-I

Date Division Roll No. Time

October 12, 2016 A 1-30 9 am -12 pm

October 13, 2016 A 31 onwards 9 am - 12 pm

October 14, 2016 B 1-30 2 pm – 5 pm

October 15, 2016 B 31 onwards 9 am - 12 pm

October 17, 2016 C 1-30 9 am - 12 pm

October 18, 2016 C 31 onwards 2 pm – 5 pm

24
B. Tutorial & Presentation Skills

The tutorials will give you an opportunity for assessing your learning of
Constitutional Law. The better you are prepared to take part in the test, the
more you will learn. Tutorials provide you with an opportunity to develop both
writing and presentation skills with sound argument. Try to make the most of
the learning opportunities provided by these tutorials. In order to achieve the
objectives of presentation and problem solving skills, two tutorials are scheduled
in this semester.
1. Tutorial – Theoretical questions:
Students are asked to pay special attention to the importance of Constitutional
Law and how validity of other laws is tested on the touchstones of constitutional
principles. The focus of a written test will be to judge their theoretical
understanding of the subject. Some current legal issues will be used to enable
students to grasp the complex constitutional issues in a better manner. Students
will be required to study, IN ADVANCE OF THE TUTORIAL, of the relevant
sections of suggested readings and the relevant case law. Students are expected
to write two-page answers to the stated question in the given tutorial.
These answers, written, will form the basis of the tutorial proceedings. It is
aimed at improving the writing, research, communication, and presentation
skills. It will not be an open book test.

Tutorial 2- Deciding a case or arguing for a party

The idea is to assess whether a student has been able to apply the theoretical
understanding of constitutional principles to a given case situation or not. They
will be given a constitutional problem and asked to prepare an answer to the
given case/s in the given tutorial. Here is a “rough guide” to the headings under
which any case should be discussed/decided:

1. Case History/background: What was the legal basis of the appellant’s claim?
Which was the previous judicial forum/court that decided the case? When was
the case decided? What is the verdict of the lower court(s), if it originated in a
subordinate court?
2. Material Facts: Only material facts need to be discussed. Rest can be ignored?
3. Key Question: Students need to identify the precise constitutional question or
questions involved in the case.
4. Case law: Each student is expected to discuss the case law on the given topic
in detail to explain the past and present legal position and allude to the current
constitutional trend. You can cite foreign cases, wherever you feel, it’s needed.
4. Decision: You can agree with the findings of the previous court or overturn
the decision.
5. Supporting arguments and application of law. Students are expected to give
cogent arguments in support of their decision and explain why they agree or
disagree with the previous court’s decision. They are also expected to judiciously
cite decided cases in support of their decision.
6. Obiter Dicta: If you wish, you can express your opinion on the issue in hand.
7. Order: Appeal allowed or dismissed.

To understand the method, students can ask the faculty about it in the class or
after the class.

C. Research Project:
Research project is aimed at improving the writing, research, and
communication and presentation skills to make students’ learning academically
more challenging. The rigor required over here is more than the usual lecture
and test format courses. It aims at promoting scholarship in the field of
constitutional law, which keeps evolving with every verdict delivered by the
Supreme Court. It also aims to enhance learning capability by research amongst
the learners, creative a forum for enhancing a greater dialogue between the
scholarly community, policymakers and practitioners. The details about the rules
of submission are annexed with this document. (Refer to Annexure A)

Project – Interim Submission – Guidelines: Please note that you are required to
submit to Mr. Satya Prakash, hard copy of the Interim submission (not more
than two sides of a page) of your project on the date of submission. It should
comprise of Details of the Learner (Name, PRN, Division and Programme), Title
of the Project, Introduction to the Project, Synopsis of the Project and the
Conclusion. Interim submission will be evaluated out of 5 marks.

Project – Final Submission – Guidelines: You will submit one bound copy of the
Project along with the hard copy of the approved interim submission (original) to
Mr. Satya Prakash on the date of submission. Final Project will be evaluated out
of 10 marks.

It is mandatory that the original interim submission as checked and approved by


the faculty be attached after the Bibliography.

7. ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS

The course in-charge for Constitutional Law I is Mr. Satya Prakash. In case you face
any problem in dealing with the subject, feel free to see the concerned
faculty. Notices relating to the course will be posted online on
www.curiosity.symlaw.edu.in

8. OFFICE HOURS AND CONTACT INFORMATION

If doubts remain, kindly contact Mr. Satya Prakash at satyastp@gmail.com or Mr.


Sudhir Verma at sudhir.research@gmail.com. Please do speak up and put your
queries during the class lectures if any. It is required, each of you to learn and
think rationally like matured and responsive students as much from discussions as
possible. Remember that there is no such thing as a stupid question, provided it is
relevant to the subject matter. Your questions and your suggestive comments are
always welcome. It is strongly recommend that learners shall take prior
appointment with the concerned faculty a day in advance and follow institutional
time schedule of visiting hour as standard to be followed.
Annexure A

Enclosure A: Guidelines for Projects

The Maximum Marks for the project are 20 (Stage I & Stage II, 09 marks each,
Interim, 02 marks)

The final copy of the project should be presented in accordance with the following
specifications:
1. The paper used for printing shall be of A4 size.

2. Printing shall be in a standardized form, on both sides of the paper and in one-
and-a-half spacing.
Font: Verdana
Font Size: Main Heading 16(Bold), Sub Heading 14(Bold) and text 12
Text should be Justified
MS Word: 2003-7 Version, Page layout: left-1.5 cm, top-right-bottom-1 cm.
Word Limit: 2000-2500 Maximum

3. A margin of one-and-a-half inches shall be left on the left hand side.

4. The title of the project, name of the candidate, degree, faculty, university,
month and year of submission, and the name of the research guide with his/her
designation and full official address shall be printed on the first page and on the
front cover. (See Appendix B)

5. A certificate (Appendix „C‟) affirming that the research work of the candidate
is original, and that the material, if any, borrowed from other sources and
incorporated in the thesis has been duly acknowledged should be signed by the
candidate and counter signed by the research guide. It should also state that the
candidate himself/herself will be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if
any, detected later. 6. The first few pages of the project should be given as per
Appendix „C‟.
7. Bibliography should be written alphabetically and given as per Appendix „D‟.
Appendix-B
Front-Page and Cover

Title of the project (centered on two or more lines)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------

Submitted by

Name of the candidate

----------------------------------------

Division …. Roll No……..Class….. of

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International University, PUNE

In

Month, year

Under the guidance of

Name of guide

-----------------------------------

Designation and official address of research guide

------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------

25
Appendix C

CERTIFICATE

The project titled “……………………………………………………………………………….” submitted


to the Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA for „Environmental Law‟ as part of Internal
Assessment is based on my original work carried out under the guidance
of……………………………… from …………. to …………. The research work has not been
submitted elsewhere for award of any degree.

The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the thesis has
been duly acknowledged.

I understand that I myself could be held responsible and accountable for


plagiarism, if any, detected later on.

Signature of the Candidate

Date:

26
Appendix D
RULES OF CITATION/BIBLIOGRAPHY

The Bibliography should contain a list of all the books, journals, articles and
pamphlets that the researcher has consulted during the course of the study. It
should be arranged alphabetically.
The entries in the bibliography should be made adopting the following order:
For books the order should be as under:
1. Name of author, last name first, followed by initials
2. Title of book in italics
3. Place, publisher and year of publication
4. Number of edition/volume.
5. The pagination
E.g., Kothari, CR. “Quantitative Techniques”, New Delhi, Vikas Publishing House
Pvt. Ltd., 1978, pp 43-46.

In case you use book by two or more authors then citation should be
written in the following way:
Kothari, CR., & Kothari, RC “Quantitative Techniques”, New Delhi, Vikas
Publishing
House Pvt. Ltd., 1978, pp 43-46.
Kothari, CR., Kothari, RC &Patil, CR, “Quantitative Techniques”, New Delhi, Vikas
Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., 1978, pp 43-46.
For journals, articles and pamphlets the order should be as under:
1. Name of author, last name first followed by initials
2. Title of article, in quotation marks
3. Name of periodical, in italics
4. The volume and number of journal or periodical
5. Place, publisher and year of publication
6. The pagination
Robert, VR. “Coping with Short-term International Money Flows”, the
Banker,
London, Vol VII, No 4, Sept 1991, p 995

In case you use an article by two or more authors then citation should
be written in the following way:
Robert, VR, & Robert, RV, “Coping with Short-term International Money Flows”,
the

27
Banker, London, Vol VII, No 4, Sept 1991, p 995.

Robert, VR., Robert, RV & Michael, VR, “Coping with Short-term International
Money Flows”, the Banker, London, VII, No 4, Sept 1991, p 995.

For Online Contents including Databases,


Website ARTICLE FROM A DATABASE

Schredl, M., Brenner, C., &Faul, C. (2002), “Positive Attitude towards Dreams:
Reliability and Stability of Ten-item Scale”, North American Journal of
Psychology,
4, 343-346. Retrieved on December 16, 2004 from Academic Search Premier
Database.
NON-PERIODICAL DOCUMENTS ON THE INTERNET

Library and Archives Canada (2002), “Celebrating Women‟s Achievements:


Women Artists in Canada”, Retrieved on December 16, 2004, from
http://www.collectionscanada.ca/women/h12-500-e.html
ARTICLE IN A NEWSPAPER OR MAGAZINE

Semenak, S. (1995, December 28), “Feeling right at home: Government


residence eschews traditional rules. Montreal Gazette, p. A4.
Driedger, S. D. (1998, April 20), “After Divorce”, Maclean‟s, 111(16), 38-43

In place of the above rules of citation, if student feels to use „Blue Book of
Citation‟, it is authorised. Copy of the same is available in the Symbiosis Law
School, NOIDA library on request.

28

Вам также может понравиться