1.

State X established special courts under a statute for the purpose of a

speedier trial. Some cases were transferred to the special courts from
regular criminal courts. Yash whose case has been so transferred
challenges its legality. will he succeed?
Ans: Anwar Ali Sarkar v. State of West Bengal
applying the test called "reasonable classification" and held that, although
the need for a speedier trial than what is possible under the procedure
prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure might form the basis of a
reasonable classification and section 5 (1) could not be regarded as
discriminatory in so far as it authorises the State Government to direct
that certain offences or classes of offences or classes of cases should be
tried by a special court, the provision was discriminatory and violative
of article 14 of the Constitution in so far as it purported to vest in the
State Government an absolute and arbitrary power to refer to a special
court for trial "any cases", which must include an individual case,
"whether the duration of such a case is likely to be long or not".

2. A complaint was given by lady students that some boys students of

their college entered ladies hostel and misbehaved. The enquiry
committee recorded the statements of the girls in the absence of the
boys and expelled the boys from the college. Advice.(Repeated 4
times)
Ans: Hari Nath Mishra vs. Principle, Rajendra Medical college
Audi alteram partem (rule of fair hearing)
It means “hear the other side” or “let the other side heard as well”. This is
the second most fundamental rule of natural justice that says no one
should be condemned unheard. In circumstances where a person against
whom any action is sought to be taken and his right or interest is being
affected, shall be given an equal opportunity of being heard and defend
himself.
The supreme court upheld the expulsion of the boys although the enquiry
committee recorded the statements of the girls in the absence of the boys.
The reason stated was the to keep the confidential nature of the enquiry
and not to expose the identity of the girls to the boys the statements were
recorded and this is a situation where exception of natural justice needs to
be followed.

3. A selection committee was constituted by the central government for

promotions to higher posts to be selected from a list of senior officers.
One of them who was also a member of the selection committee was
 promoted. An unsuccessful candidate challenges this. Will he
succeed?

Ans: A.K.Kraipak V. Union of India

a person who serves on a committee that selects candidates for a job must
not be a candidate for the job himself. The logic is that the judges could
be impartial and neutral.
The Supreme Court of India’s top court has ruled that natural justice
principles apply not only to judicial functions but also to administrative
and executive functions. In this case, the selection committee’s decisions
were ruled to be in violation of these principles, and the selection process
was invalidated.

4. The Central Government appointed a commission to inquire into the

conduct of the Chief Minister of a State. Is the action of the Central
Government Valid.
Ans: State of Karnataka V. Union of India
A memorandum alleging corruption, favoritism, and nepotism against the
Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka was submitted to the Union
Homo Minister by certain opposition members of the State Assembly.
The Chief Minister repelled the allegations as frivolous and politically
motivated.

Commission of Inquiry appointed by the Central Government under the

Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1932 to inquire into allegations of
corruption, favoritism, and nepotism against the Chief Minister of a State-
Suit filed by the State under Art.131.
Article 131 deals with the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Under this original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the honorable court
does not entertain cases where a private party sues another private party.

5. An advocate was removed from the role of State Bar Council on the
ground of Professional Misconduct without giving an opportunity to
defend himself. Examine the validity of his removal.
Ans: Audi alteram partem (rule of fair hearing)
Sec 35 of Advocates Act. 1961 deals with punishment of advocates for
misconduct
Sec 35(2)- The State Bar Council Shall fix the date of hearing and send
the notice to the Advocate before taking any action.
6. S was a Director in the Special Planning Authority. The authority
allotted plots to three associations comprising family members or
relatives of S. Decide.
Ans: No, he cannot do so. It amounts to Personal Bias

7. A convict written a letter to one of the judges of the Supreme Court

alleging inhuman torture by jail authorities. Decide the authenticity
of the letter.
Ans. Sunil Batra V. Delhi Administration
Sunil Batra, a convict under a death sentence, through a letter to one of
the Judges of the Court alleged that torture was practiced upon another
prisoner by a jail warder, to extract money from the victim through his
visiting relations.
The letter was converted into a habeas corpus proceeding. The Court
issued notice to the State and the concerned officials. It also appointed
amicus curiae and authorized them to visit the prison, meet the prisoner,
see relevant documents and interview necessary witnesses so as to enable
them to inform themselves about the surrounding circumstances and the
scenario of events.

8. An army official did not obey the lawful command of his superior
officer by not accepting the food offered to him. The court martial
proceedings were initiated and the sentence of rigorous
imprisonment of one year was imposed. He was also dismissed from
service with added disqualification that he would be unfit for future
employment. The said order was challenged by him. Decide.
Ans: Yes, the army officer can approach the Court for the judicial review
of this administrative order. The action taken by the superior is is totally
irrelevant and the exercise of power is ultra vires. The army official can
approach the courts of law via judicial review for the legality of the order
on irrelevant grounds.

9. A committee of the University had to select and recommend books of

various authors and publishers for the college syllabus. Some of the
members in the committee were themselves authors whose books
were selected. Decide.
Ans: Mohapatra vs. State of Orissa
 This is a case of violation of principles of natural justice. This is a kind of
personal bias wherein you judge yourself. A person cannot be a judge in
his own cause. The authors cannot be the members of the committee and
select their own books. It will lead to personal bias which is against the
principles of natural justice. There is a full possibility of bias here and
selection of the books by the committee would be held as invalid.

10.A student wrote her register number on every page of the answer
book in a coded examination. The University cancelled her
examination results without giving her notice. Is it valid?
Ans: Nagraj vs. university of Mysore
No, it is not valid. This case relating to the principles of natural justice.
The situation here demands that the principle of audi alterem partem must
have been followed. As the university is a quasi-judicial authority it must
follow the principles of natural justice and must have given the student a
chance of fair hearing.

The Delhi Corporation Act,

1957 in Sec 92(1) provided
that all persons drawing
salary less that Rs. 6,000/-
p.m. will be appointed by the
General Manager of the
Delhi Transport undertaking. S
95 further provided that no
person can be dismissed by
any authority subordinate to
the appointing authority. The
Genral Manager framed a
rule under the Act and
delegated his power to the
Assistant General Manager. A
driver
drawing salary less than
Rs.6000/- pm was dismissed
by the AGM. The aggrieved
driver challenged the rule and
action. Decide
11.The Delhi Corporation Act, 1957 in Sec 92(1) provided that all
persons drawing salary less that Rs. 6,000/- p.m. will be appointed by
the General Manager of the Delhi Transport undertaking. S 95
further provided that no person can be dismissed by any authority
subordinate to the appointing authority. The General Manager
framed a rule under the Act and delegated his power to the Assistant
General Manager. A driver drawing salary less than Rs.6000/- pm
was dismissed by the AGM. The aggrieved driver challenged the rule
and action. Decide
Ans: The sub-delegation by the GM of the company to the AGM is not
allowed in law. The general rule is under the maxim “delegatus non
 potest delagare” that a delegate cannot further delegate a power given to
it by a statute. This applies to delegated legislation also.

12.The Parent Act empowered the municipality to impose sales tax at

the rate of 25/- per bottle of foreign liquor. But the municipality
failed to exercise the power. The state government imposed the tax
itself for the municipality. The action of the government was
challenged. Decide.