CBSE Class 11 Legal Studies — NCERT Solutions

Patriarchal Theory of Origin of State

Given/Concept: The Patriarchal Theory is one of the classical theories explaining the origin of the State.

Explanation:

• The Patriarchal Theory was propounded by Sir Henry Maine and Robert Filmer.
• According to this theory, the State originated from the family, with the father (patriarch) as its head.
• The earliest form of social organisation was the family, headed by the eldest male member — the patriarch — who exercised absolute authority.
• As families grew, they formed clans, clans formed tribes, and tribes eventually evolved into the State.
• The authority of the king/ruler is seen as an extension of the father's authority over his family.
• Sir Henry Maine, in his work Ancient Law (1861), traced the origin of society and State to the patriarchal family unit.

Criticism: Critics argue that this theory is based on assumptions and ignores the role of women and matriarchal societies in the formation of the State.

Conclusion: While the Patriarchal Theory provides a historical basis for understanding early social organisation, it is considered limited in its scope as a complete explanation for the origin of the State.

Developmental States

Given/Concept: A Developmental State is a type of state classified on the basis of the role it plays in the economic and social development of its citizens.

Explanation:

• A Developmental State is one where the government plays an active and interventionist role in guiding and promoting economic growth and social development.
• The state does not merely maintain law and order (as in a minimal state) but actively formulates policies to industrialise, modernise, and uplift the standard of living of its people.
• Examples include Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and China, which achieved rapid economic growth through strong state intervention in the economy.
• Key features include:

1. A strong, competent bureaucracy.
2. State-directed investment in key industries.
3. Long-term economic planning.
4. Collaboration between the state and the private sector.
5. Focus on education, technology, and infrastructure.

• The state acts as a catalyst for development rather than leaving everything to market forces.

Conclusion: Developmental States have been credited with achieving rapid industrialisation and poverty reduction, making them an important model of governance in the 20th and 21st centuries.

1. Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (1990)

Facts: After the Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984), the Union of India entered into a settlement with Union Carbide Corporation for $470 million as compensation. Charan Lal Sahu and others challenged the constitutional validity of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985, which gave the Government of India the exclusive right to represent victims.

Observations of the Court: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Act. The Court held that the Government acting as parens patriae (guardian of its citizens) was justified in representing the victims. The settlement amount was also upheld. The Court observed that the State has a duty to protect the rights of its citizens, especially the weaker sections, and the Act was a valid exercise of legislative power under Articles 246 and 253 of the Constitution.

2. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

Facts: This case arose from the dismissal of several State governments (including Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and Rajasthan) under Article 356 (President's Rule) after the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992. S.R. Bommai, the Chief Minister of Karnataka, challenged the proclamation of President's Rule in his state.

Observations of the Court: A nine-judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court laid down landmark principles:

• Federalism is a basic feature of the Constitution.
• The power under Article 356 is not absolute and is subject to judicial review.
• Before imposing President's Rule, the President must give the State government an opportunity to respond.
• The floor of the Legislative Assembly is the only place to test the majority of a government; the President cannot act on the subjective satisfaction of the Governor alone.
• Secularism is also a basic feature of the Constitution.

3. Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982)

Facts: Randhir Singh, a driver in the Delhi Police Force, filed a writ petition claiming that he was being paid less than drivers employed in other departments of the Central Government performing similar duties. He invoked the principle of 'equal pay for equal work.'

Observations of the Court: The Supreme Court held that although 'equal pay for equal work' is not explicitly mentioned as a Fundamental Right in the Constitution, it is a constitutional goal under Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 16 (Equality of opportunity in public employment), and 39(d) (a Directive Principle). The Court elevated this principle to the status of a constitutional right and directed that persons doing the same work must be paid equally. This case is a landmark in establishing the link between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.

4. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997)

Facts: A news report revealed that a private company (Span Motels Pvt. Ltd.), whose directors included the family members of a former Environment Minister Kamal Nath, had encroached upon the bank of the River Beas in Himachal Pradesh and diverted its flow to protect a motel. The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the matter.

Observations of the Court: The Supreme Court applied the Public Trust Doctrine for the first time in India. The Court held that:

• Natural resources such as rivers, forests, seashores, and the air are held by the State as a trustee for the public and cannot be transferred to private parties for commercial use.
• The motel was directed to be removed from the floodplain and the area was to be restored to its original condition.
• The Court imposed exemplary damages on the motel company.
• The right to a clean environment is part of the Right to Life under Article 21.

5. Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008)

Facts: The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 was challenged. This Act provided for 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in centrally funded educational institutions. The petitioner argued that this violated the Right to Equality under Article 14.

Observations of the Court: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Act with certain conditions:

• The 'creamy layer' (the more affluent and advanced among OBCs) must be excluded from the benefit of reservation.
• Reservations cannot be permanent and must be reviewed periodically.
• The 50% ceiling on reservations (as laid down in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India) must be maintained.
• The Court reaffirmed that the right to education and equality are fundamental rights, but reasonable classification for backward classes is permissible under Article 15(4) and 15(5).

1. Fundamental Rights

Fundamental Rights are the basic human rights guaranteed to all citizens of India by Part III (Articles 12–35) of the Constitution. They are called 'fundamental' because they are essential for the all-round development of individuals and are justiciable, meaning they can be enforced by courts.

The six Fundamental Rights are:

• Right to Equality (Articles 14–18): Guarantees equality before law, prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, and abolishes untouchability.
• Right to Freedom (Articles 19–22): Includes freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, residence, and profession.
• Right against Exploitation (Articles 23–24): Prohibits human trafficking, forced labour, and child labour.
• Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25–28): Guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion.
• Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29–30): Protects the rights of minorities to conserve their culture and establish educational institutions.
• Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32): Allows citizens to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Dr. Ambedkar called this the 'heart and soul' of the Constitution.

Fundamental Rights can be suspended during a National Emergency (except Articles 20 and 21). They can also be reasonably restricted by the State in the interest of public order, morality, and national security.

2. Fundamental Duties

Fundamental Duties are listed in Part IV-A, Article 51-A of the Constitution. They were added by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 on the recommendation of the Swaran Singh Committee. Originally there were 10 duties; an 11th was added by the 86th Amendment Act, 2002.

Key features:

• They are not justiciable (cannot be directly enforced by courts), but they serve as a moral obligation on citizens.
• They remind citizens that along with rights come responsibilities.
• They help courts determine the constitutional validity of laws.

Some important Fundamental Duties include:

• To abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions.
• To cherish and follow the noble ideals of the freedom struggle.
• To uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.
• To defend the country and render national service when called upon.
• To promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood.
• To protect and improve the natural environment.
• To develop scientific temper and humanism.
• To safeguard public property.
• To strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity.
• For parents/guardians to provide opportunities for education to children between 6 and 14 years (11th duty).

3. Preamble

The Preamble is the introductory statement of the Constitution. It declares the source, objectives, and the date of adoption of the Constitution. It was adopted on 26 November 1949.

Text of the Preamble: "WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation; IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION."

Key words explained:

• Sovereign: India is free from external control.
• Socialist: Wealth is equitably distributed; the State works to reduce inequality.
• Secular: The State has no official religion; all religions are treated equally.
• Democratic: Government is elected by the people.
• Republic: The Head of State (President) is elected, not hereditary.

The words 'Socialist' and 'Secular' were added by the 42nd Amendment, 1976. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court held that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution. In Berubari Union Case (1960), it was held that the Preamble is not a source of power but can be used to interpret ambiguous provisions.

4. Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)

Directive Principles of State Policy are contained in Part IV (Articles 36–51) of the Constitution. They are borrowed from the Irish Constitution. They are guidelines or directives given to the State (Central and State governments) to keep in mind while formulating laws and policies.

Key features:

• They are non-justiciable, meaning they cannot be enforced by courts.
• They aim to establish a Welfare State and a Social and Economic Democracy.
• They supplement Fundamental Rights by providing positive obligations on the State.

Classification of DPSPs:

Socialistic Directives:

• Equal pay for equal work for men and women (Article 39d).
• Right to adequate means of livelihood (Article 39a).
• Free legal aid (Article 39A).
• Right to work, education, and public assistance (Article 41).

Gandhian Directives:

• Organisation of village panchayats (Article 40).
• Promotion of cottage industries (Article 43).
• Prohibition of intoxicating drinks (Article 47).

Liberal-Intellectual Directives:

• Uniform Civil Code (Article 44).
• Separation of judiciary from executive (Article 50).
• Protection of monuments of national importance (Article 49).

Relationship with Fundamental Rights: In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court held that there must be a harmonious balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs. Neither is superior to the other; both together form the conscience of the Constitution.

Given: Two schools of jurisprudence — Natural Law School and Analytical School.

Difference:

Explanation: The Natural Law School (represented by thinkers like Aristotle, Aquinas, and Grotius) holds that law derives its validity from higher moral or divine principles. The Analytical School (represented by John Austin and Jeremy Bentham) holds that law is simply the command of the sovereign backed by a sanction, and morality is irrelevant to the definition of law.

Conclusion: The fundamental difference is that Natural Law School links law with morality, whereas the Analytical School separates law from morality entirely.

Given: Two schools of jurisprudence — Sociological School and Realist School.

Difference:

Explanation: The Sociological School (represented by Roscoe Pound, Duguit, and Ehrlich) treats law as a social phenomenon and studies its impact on society. The Realist School (represented by Karl Llewellyn and Jerome Frank) argues that law is not found in statutes or books but in the actual decisions made by judges — 'law in action' rather than 'law in books'.

Conclusion: The Sociological School focuses on law and society, while the Realist School focuses on law as it is applied by courts.

Given/Context: The question relates to the Supreme Court's power of judicial review over constitutional amendments.

Answer:

The Supreme Court can strike down a legislation aimed at amending the Constitution on the following two grounds:

1. Violation of the Basic Structure Doctrine: As laid down in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a manner that destroys or abrogates its 'basic structure' or 'basic features'. If a constitutional amendment violates the basic structure (e.g., supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, independence of judiciary, fundamental rights, etc.), the Supreme Court can strike it down.

2. Violation of the Procedure prescribed under Article 368: If the amendment has not been passed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Article 368 of the Constitution (e.g., lack of required special majority, or absence of ratification by State Legislatures where required), the Supreme Court can declare it unconstitutional on the ground of procedural impropriety.

Conclusion: Thus, a constitutional amendment can be invalidated either for violating the substantive basic structure of the Constitution or for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under Article 368.

(1) Exogamy and Endogamy

Example: Under Hindu law, a person cannot marry within the same gotra (exogamy). In contrast, certain communities insist on marriage within the same caste (endogamy).

(2) Void and Voidable Marriage

Example: A marriage between sapindas (close blood relatives) under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is void. A marriage where consent was obtained by fraud or force is voidable.

(3) Monogamy and Polygamy

Example: Hindu law (after the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955) mandates monogamy. Traditionally, Muslim personal law permits polygamy (up to four wives for a man).

(4) Marriage and Divorce

Example: A Hindu marriage is solemnised under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, whereas divorce is granted under the same Act on specified grounds such as cruelty, desertion, etc.