Constitution I Problems A university of Punjab prescribed Punjabi in Gurumukhi script as the sole and exclusive medium of instruction.

Arya Samajists a Religious and linguistic minority, residing in the state approached the Supreme ourt as it violative of their fundamental rights. !hether the "rit petition is maintainable # Refer$ %A& ollege 'hatinda v State of Punjab Issues 1) Whether university has power to impose a script and language to minority run edn institution 2) By prescribing medium is state going ultravires and encroaching central govt power in entry 66 of part I of concurrent list ) Cases! 1) "tate of Bombay v# Bombay educational society$ 2) %ingustic minorities protection committee v &arnata'a (he supreme court declared that it violated the right of )rya "ama*ists to use their ow n script in colleges run by them and compulsorily affiliated to the +niversity (he court emphasi,ed that if the +niversity compulsorily affiliated minority colleges to itself and prescribesthe medium of instruction and e-amination to be in a language which is not their mother tongue$ or re.uires e-amination to be ta'en in a script w hich is not their ow n$ then it w ould interfere w ith theirfundamental rights# /o linguistic minority can$ ofcourse$ insist that a university must conduct its e-amination in the language or script of the minority$ but$ at the same time$ the +niversity also cannot force the minority institution compulsory affiliated themselves to it and impose on them a medium of instruction w hich is different from the minorities0 language or script# (he "tate has to harmonise its power to prescribe themedium of instruction w ith the rights of the religious or linguistic minorities have the medium of instructionsand script of their ow n choice# (he "tate can therefore either provide for instruction in the media of these minorities$ or allow their institution to get affiliated to such other +niversity outside the "tate as have same media of instruction as the minority institutions# A 'ombay Government order directing the schools "ith (nglish medium to admit only Anglo) *ndians and iti+ens of non)Asiatic descent in the classes taught in (nglish language "as challenged as violative of Art ,- .,/ of the onstitution. %ecide. 1efer! 0he State 1f 'ombay vs 'ombay (ducation Society And 2rs 3acts! (he "ociety and its two 4irectors presented an pplication under article 226 of the Constitution in the 5igh Court of Bombay praying for the issue of a Writ in the nature of 6andamus restraining the "tate of Bombay and its officers from enforcing the said order and to allow the petitioners to admit in the school any children of non7)nglo7Indian citi,ens or citi,ens of the )siatic descent and to educate them through the medium of 8nglish# 5eld! 91) that the impugned order denying the right of students who are not )nglo7Indians or are of )siatic descent to be admitted to a recognised )nglo7Indian "chool 9in this case the Barnes 5igh "chool) which receives aid from the "tate and which imparts education through the medium of 8nglish is void and unenforceable as it offends against the fundamental right guaranteed to all citi,ens by article 2:92) ofthe Constitution$ because 9a)(he language of article 2:92) of the Constitution is wide and un.ualified and covers all citi,ens whether they belong to the ma*ority or minority group# 9b)(he protection given by the said article e-tends against the "tate or anybody who denies the right conferred by it# 9a)(he said article confers a special right on citi,ens for admission into the educational

institutions maintained or aided by the "tate# 9d)(he marginal note referring to minorities does not control the plain meaning of the language in which article 2:92) has been couched# (he word ; namely ; imports enumeration of what is comprised in the preceding clause# In other words it e.uates what follows with the clause described before# 92)Barnes 5igh"chool at 4eolali and other )nglo7Indian "chools ave a right to admit non7)nglo7 Indian students and students of )siatic descent inasmuch as article < proviso 2 imposes an obligation on the )nglo7Indian "chools to ma'e available at least => per cent# of the annual admissions to non7)nglo7Indian students as a condition precedent of their receiving grant from the ?overnment and the impugned order is unconstitutional as it prevents the )nglo7Indian schools from performing their constitutional obligation and e-poses them to the ris' of forfeiting their constitutional right to the special grant# In view of the fundamental right guaranteed to a minority li'e the )nglo7Indian community under article 2:91) to conserve its own language$ script and culture and the right to establish and administer educational institutions of its own choice under article >91) there is implicit therein the right to impart instruction in its own institutions tothe children of its own community in its own language and the "tate by its police power cannot determine the medium of instruction in opposition to such fundamental right# 2A2 an accused committed a heinous crime and it "asproved. 0he 3igh ourt of Rajasthan imposed capital punishment that too public hanging. ', the "ife of the convict appealed to the Supreme ourt that public hanging "ould be against the spirit of Article ,4. %ecide "hether the appeal maintainable or not # 1efer ! ) ? of India v %achma 4evi 3acts! 1a*astan 5C ordered public hanging of a lady %achma 4evi in a dowry death in 1:@6$ "C held that a barbaric crime cannot be dealth with barbaric penalty on any public ground# (he death sentence is due to anger than reasons# "C held that public hanging is not presecribed in prison rules and hence unconstitutional# 1efer 4eena v +nion of India (he "#C# held that public hanging even if permitted under the rules would violate )rticle 21 of the Costitution# A social activist gets some information that several under trial prisoners "ere put in prison for more than the actual period,if the offences "ere proved and imprisonment "ould be imposed by the court. 3e filed a "rit petition before the Supreme ourt under Article 5, as it violative of Articles ,, and 5-)A respectively. %ecide. 1efer ! 5ussainara &hatoon A 2rs vs 5ome "ecretary$ "tate 2f Bihar 3acts! (he case dealt$ inter alia$ with the rights of the under trial prisoners on habeas corpus petitions which disclosed a shoc'ing state of affairs in regard to administration of *ustice in the "tate of Bihar# )n alarmingly large number of men and women$ children including$ were behind prison bars for years awaiting trial in courts of law# (he offences with which some of them were charged were trivial$ which even if proved$ would not warrant punishment for more that a few months$ perhaps a year or two$ and yet they remained in *ail$ deprived of their freedom$ for periods ranging from three to ten years without even as much as their trial having commenced# (he Court ordered immediate release of these under trials many of whom were 'ept in *ail without trial or even without a charge#

1uling! 3airness under )rticle 21 is impaired where procedural law does not provide speedy trial of accusedB does not provide for his pre7trial release on bail on his personal bond$ when he is indigent and there is no substantial ris' of his abscondingB if an under7trial prisoner is 'ept in *ail for a period longer than the ma-imum term of imprisonment which could have been awarded on his conviction and if he is not offered free legal aid$ where he is too poor to engage a lawyer$ provided the lawyer engaged by the "tate is not ob*ected to by the accused# Where the petitioner succeeds in establishing his case$ the Court would grant him any relief which is necessary to afford proper *ustice$ or to prevent manifest in*ustice regardless of technicalities such as to issue directions to the ?overnment and other appropriate authorities$ as may be necessary$ to secure to a prisoner his constitutional rights# (he "upreme Court 9per Bhagwati C) 9at 1><$ para 1>) held that the state cannot be permitted to deny the constitutional right of speedy trial to the accused on the ground that the "tate has no ade.uate financial resources to incur the necessary e-penditure needed for improving the administrative and *udicial apparatus with a view to improving speedy trial# Sukumaran, an undertrial prisoner "as brought to the court "ith hand cuffing by the police. Sukumaran "ants to challengeit as violative of his fundamental right under Article ,4. Provide legal advise to Sukumaran. 1efer ! Prem "han'ar "hu'la v# 4elhi )dministration Prem "han'er "hu'la v# 4elhi )dministration the petitioner was an under7trial prisoner in (ihar *ail# 5e was re.uired to be ta'en from *ail to magistrate court and bac' periodically in connection with certain cases pending against him# (he trial court has directed the concerned officer that while escorting him to the court and bac' handcuffing should not be done unless it was so warranted# But handcuffing was forced on him by the escorts# 5e therefore sent a telegram to one of the *udges of "upreme Court on the basis of which the present habeas corpus petition has been admitted by the court# (o handcuff is to hoop harshly and to punish humiliatingly# (he minimum freedom of movement$ under which a detainee is entitled to under )rt#1:$ cannot be cut down by the application of handcuffs# 5andcuffs must be the last refuge as there are other ways for ensuring security# "upreme Court 4irectives (he minimum freedom of movement$ under which a detainee is entitled to under )rt#1:$ cannot be cut down by the application of handcuffs# 5andcuffs must be the last refuge as there are other ways for ensuring security# (here must be material and sufficiently stringent grounds to satisfy a reasonable mind that there is clear and present danger of escape of the prisoner who is being transported by brea'ing out of police control# 8ven when in e-treme circumstances handcuffs have been put on the prisoner$ the escorting authority must record the reasons for doing so in the 4aily 4iary 1eport# (hey must also be shown to the court# Solitary onfinement$ "unil Batra v# 4elhi )dministration In the case the petitioner$ a convict under a death sentence$ challenged his punishment of solitary confinement as provided under "ection >92) of the Prisons )ct 1@:=# (he petitioner contended that "ection D6 of the Prisons )ct$ which confers arbitrary powers on the "uperintendent to confine a prisoner in irons$ violates )rticles 1= and 21 of the Constitution (he "upreme Court again in a separate writ petition filed by "unil Batra and Charles "obhara*$ two priso7ners in 4elhiEs (ihar *ail$ made an effort to humani,e *ail conditions# (he .uestion before the Court was! ;4oes a prison setting$ ipso facto$ outlaw the rule of law$ loc' out the *udicial process from the *ail gates and declare a long holiday for human rights of con7victs in confinement F )nd if there is no total eclipse what luscent segment is open for *udicial *usticeF "unil Batra$ sentenced to death had

challenged his incarcera7tion in solitary confinement and Charles "obhra* had challenged his confinement with bar7fetters# (he "upreme Court held that there is no total deprivation of a prisonerEs rights of life and liberty# (he ;safe 'eeping; in *ail custody is the limited *uris7diction of the *ailer# ;(o desort safe7'eeping into a hidden opportunity to care the ward and to traumati,e him is to betray the custodian of law$ safe custody does not mean deprivations$ violation$ banishment from the lanter barguet of prison life and inflictionEs of tra7vails as if guardianship were best fulfilled by ma'ing the ward suffer near insanity#; (he court held that "unil BatraEs mercy petition to the PresidentG?overnor had not been disposed off and Batra was not ;under sentence of death#; 5is solitary confinement was .uashed# In the case of Charles "obh7raC$ it was held that there was no arbitrary power to put an undertrial under bar7fetters# (he discretion to impose ;irons; is a .uasi7*udicial decision and a previous hearing is essential before putting a prisoners in fetters# (he grounds for imposing fetters would be given to each victim in his language# It was further laid down that no ;fetters; shall continue be7yond day time and a prolonged continuance of bar7fetters shall be with the approval of the Chief Cudicial 6agistrate or a "essions Cudge# In another case of ;Prem "han'ar "hu'la Hs# 4elhi )dministration$; the "upreme Court struc' down the provisions of the Pan*ab Police rules which discrimina7ted between the rich and the poor prisoner in deter7mining who was to be handcuffed# (he Court also held that in the absence of the escorting authority re7cording why the prisoner is being put under handcuffs$ the procedure of handcuffing is a violation of )rticle 21 6r ) was supplied with two grounds for his detention# But later on$ the detaining authority revo'ed one of the grounds communicated to him earlier# ) challenges the detention as illegal74ecide# 1efer!"hibban %al "a'sena vs (he "tate 2f +ttar Pradesh Court held that$ What the ?overnment has done in this case is to confirm the detention order and at the same time to revo'e it under one of the sub7clauses of section 91) 9a) of the )ct# (his is not what the section contemplates# (he ?overnment could either confirm the order of detention made under section or revo'e it completely and there is nothing in law which prevents the ?overnment from ma'ing a fresh order of detention if it so chooses# (he detention of the petitioner is conse.uently illegal#(he application is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be set at liberty# %ater the law was amended in 1:@= by adding a section D has been made to remove any bar of another detention order being issued against same person# )& 1oy v +nion of India 9/") case) $ upholding /") some directions were issued to safeguard intersts of detenue which include 1) inform 'ith and 'in about detention 2) )llow food$reading material$ visit from friends or attorneys ) /o treatment of punitive character# =) 4etained in a place where detenue habitually live# D) must be 'ept separated from convicts# (he Cabalpur City 6unicipal Corporation issued a notification specifying Canmashtami# 1amanavami and 6ahaveer Cavanthi as holidays7for slaughter houses# Butchers challenge the order on the ground that Epublic interestE in article 1:9b) did not e-tend to the religious sentiments of the ma*ority community# 4ecide# Refer $ 6unicipal orporation 1f 'ombay ... vs 7an 6ohammed 8smanbhai 5is contention was that standing orders put an unreasonable restriction on the petitionerEs right to carry on his trade or business as a beef dealer and that restriction was not in the interest of the general

public but was based on e-traneous considerationsB that the standing orders single out the petitioner and other butchers li'e him$ who slaughter only cattle and not sheep or goat$ for hostile discrimination inasmuch as the standing orders effect only the butchers who slaughter cattle and not those who deal in meat of goat and sheep# (he e-pression ;in the interest of general public; is of wide import comprehending public order$ public health$ public security$ morals$ economic welfare of the community and the ob*ects mentioned in Part IH of the Constitution# /o body can dispute a law providing for basic amenities# If the 6unicipal Commissioner declares certain days as holidays for the slaughter house in order to give facilities to the municipal staff wor'ing in the municipal slaughter house$ no body could have any ob*ection to such a standing order# It is now well7established that while )rt# 1= forbids class legislation it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation and that in order to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled$ namely$ 9i) the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and 9ii) such differentia must have rational relation to the ob*ect sought to be achieved by the statute in .uestion# (here is always a presumptionin favour of constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him$ who attac's it$ to show that there has been a clear violation of the constitutional principles# 6uncipality decision is valid# "heela Barse v# +nion of India I91:@6) "CC D:6J 3acts! 6s#"heela Barse$ a dedicated social wor'er too' up the case of helpless children below age of 16 illegally detained in *ails# "he petitioned for the release of such young children from *ails$ production of information as to the e-istence of *uvenile courts$ homes and schools and for a direction that the 4istrict *udges should visit *ails or sub7*ails within their *urisdiction to ensure children are properly loo'ed after when in custody# 1uling! (he Court held that it is the right of a public minded citi,en to bring an action for the enforcement of fundamental rights of a disabled segment of the citi,enry# Where the Court comes to a conclusion that the right to speedy trail of an accused has been infringed$ the charge or the conviction$ as the case may be$ shall be .uashed# (he Court directed that surprise visits should be paid to the police loc'7ups by a *udge of the City court appointed by the Principal *udge# (he Court observed that children in *ail are entitled to special treatment# Children are national assets and they should be treated with special care# (he Court urged the setting up of remand and *uvenile homes for children in *ails# With the ob*ect of providing more labour for agriculture$ so as to help grow more food$ a state laid down that in a certain Bidi manufacturing area no person shall$ during agricultural seasons$ be employed as Bidi ma'ing# (he law is claimed to be invalid in violating freedom to follow any trade or occupation# 4ecide# 1efer ! Chinthamon 1ao vs "tate of 6adhya pradesh (he phrase ;reasonable restriction; connotes that the limitation imposed on a person in en*oyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an e-cessive nature$ beyond what is re.uired in the interests of the public# (heword ;reasonable; implies intelligent care and deliberation$ that is$ the choice of a course which reason dictates# %egisla7 tion which arbitrarily or e-cessively invades the right cannot be said to contain the .uality of reasonableness and unless it stri'es a proper balance between the freedom guarnteed in )rt# 1: 91) 9g) and the social control permit7 ted by el# 96) of )rt# 1:$ it must be held to be wanting in that .uality#

"uch a prohibition on the face of it is of an arbitrary nature inasmuch as it has no relation whatsoever to the ob*ect which the legislation see's to achieve and as such cannot be said to be a reasonable restriction on the e-ercise of the right# 3urther the statute see's to prohibit all persons residing in the notified villages during the agricultural season from engaging themselves in the manufacture of bidis# It cannot be denied that there would be a number of infirm and disabled persons$ a number of children$ old women and petty shop 'eepers residing in these villages who are inca7 pable of being used for agricultural labour# )ll such persons are prohibited by law from engaging themselves in the manufacture of bidisB and are thus being deprived of earning their livelihood# It is a matter of common 'nowledge that there are certain classes of persons residing in every village who do not engage in agricultural operations# (hey and their womenfol' and children in their leisure hours supplement their income by engaging themselves in bidi business# (here seems no reason for prohibiting them from carrying on this occupation# )rbitrary nature of order hence invalid# (est of reasonableness fails#

18"81H)(I2/ C)"8" (he "upreme Court delivered its *udgment in Indira "awhney and others Hs# +nion of India and 2thers 9)I1 1:: "C =<<) on 16th /ovember$ 1::2$ holding that the total reservations under article 169=) should not e-ceed D> per cent# we have to 'eep in mind that while providing reservation to any caste or category$ it should not be an e-cessive reservation# (he respondents have not come with any material to *ustify amendment in sub7 section 6 and < of the )ct and conse.uential amendment in the 1ules# (hey have not even furnished the details of the proportionate population between male and female in the "tate of 1a*asthan# In view of aforesaid$ the "tate has supported the amendment only based on arguments# "ince reservation to "cheduled Castes and "cheduled (ribes has been 'ept limited in proportion to the population$ we have to 'eep in mind the aforesaid legal position to ad*udicate the issue raised herein# 2ne7third of the total seats have been reserved for women as per constitutional provision itself# It is no doubt true that over and above one7third of the total seats$ women can be given reservation but then it should not be out of proportion# (he reservation to any category and caste should be rational and not e-cessive# (he 5on0ble "upreme Court$ while considering the matter in the case of Indra "awhney 9supra) put a rider that reservation should not e-ceed to D>K in ordinary case# (he aforesaid *udgment was in reference to )rticle 16 of the Constitution of India thus cannot be applied as such$ however the ratio of the aforesaid *udgment can be loo'ed into for *udging the issue as to whether there e-ist e-cessive reservation in favour of women or not# )rticle 1= of the Constitution guarantee right of e.uality among the citi,ens# If for e-ample$ total proportionate population ratio between male and female is DDK and =DK respectively in any "tate then reservation of D>K seats for women candidates in proportion to population would be more than D>K# In the present case$ respondents have not given proportionate population ratio to *ustify their action and to show that they have not provided e-cess reservation to the women# In absence of such figures$ we are constrained to give a specific opinion on the aforesaid issue# 5owever$ 'eeping in mind provisions of )rticle 2= ( of the Constitution as well as )rticles 1= and 1D$ we are of the view that if proportionate population of the women is less than the male then reservation of D>K seats for women is e-cessive and$ in that case$ )rticle 1= of the Constitution is violated$ hence$ amended provisions$ as challenged$ deserve to be struc' down being ultra vires# (/ follows 6:K reservation and has put the act in /inth schedule to save it from *udicial review# &aranata enacted reservation but )pe- court cancelled it now they continue with D>K#

Single post reservation (he rationale of reservation under )rticle 169=) of the constitution is founded on the inade.uacy of representation of a class in the service under the state# (he .uestion of ade.uacy of representation does not and cannot arise in a single post cadre because only one person can be accommodated against the single post$ leaving no scope for ade.uate representation of any particular class in such single post# 4efence council submitted that has submitted that the mechanism of roster has been evolved to balance *ustice for all segments of the society so that in the higher echelons of service$ a single post is also made available to the bac'ward classes by reserving such post only periodically on the basis of rotation of the roster point# "uch mechanism does not offend any provision of the Constitution# In a single postcadre$ reservation at any point of time on account of rotation of roster is bound to bring about a situation where such single post in the cadre will be 'ept reserved e-clusively for the members of the bac'ward classes and in total e-clusion of the general embers of the public# "uch total e-clusion of general members of the public and cent percent reservation for the bac'ward classes is not permissible within the constitutional frame wor'# (he decisions of this Court to this effect over the decades have been consistent# 1efer !P2"( ?1)4+)(8 I/"(I(+(8 23 684IC)% 84+C)(I2/ )/4 18"8)1C5 C5)/4I?)15 vs# 3)C+%(L )""2CI)(I2/ )/4 21" 1::@ 0he post of %irector in an engineering college run by a minority religious group falls vacant. Ahmed Patel, the senior)most professor belonging to the religious group, "as not appointed. Ahmed Patel feels aggrieved. Advise him. Refer$Secretary, 6alankara Syrian atholic ollege vs 0.7ose 9 1rs. ( 6 ) Pai 3oundation v# "tate of &arnata'a I2>>2 9@) "CC =@1J has held that receipt of aid by a minority institution removes the protection under )rticle >91)$ by ta'ing away its right to claim immunity from interference and therefore all regulations made by the "tate$ governing the manner of ma'ing appointments and removal$ as also the conditions of service of Principals and %ecturers$ will be binding on such aided institution# (he 5igh Court held that aid carries the EpriceE of surrender of a part of its freedom and independence in matters of administration# (he appellants contend that the right to appoint Principal and teachers is the most important facet of minorityEs ;right to administer; under )rticle > 91) of the Constitution# (hey submit that receipt of aid by minority institutions$ does not$ in any way$ fetter or abridge their constitutional right to administer educational institutions$ and therefore "ection D< 9 ) of the )ct re.uiring the appointment of only the senior7most of lecturers as Principal is violative of )rticle > 91) of the Constitution# (he appellant contends that the protection e-tended by )rticle > 91) cannot be used against a member of the teaching staff who belongs to the same minority community# It is contended that a minority institution cannot ignore the rights of eligible lecturers belonging to the same community$ senior to the person proposed to be selected$ merely because the institution has the right to select a Principal of its choice# But this contention ignores the position that the right of the minority to select a Principal of its choice is with reference to the assessment of the personEs outloo' and philosophy and ability to implement its ob*ects# (he management is entitled to appoint the person$ who according to them is most suited$ to head the institution$ provided he possesses the .ualifications prescribed for the posts# (he career advancement prospects of the teaching staff$ even those belonging to the same community$ should have to yield to the right of the management under )rticle > 91) to establish and administer educational institutions#

A 7ain temple "as o"ned by the State. 0he %istrict ollector took steps to install a Shivling inside the temple for 3indu devotees "ho fre:uented the temple. 0he 7ain devotees feel aggrieved. Advise them. 1efer! (e*ra* Chhogalal ?andhi )nd )nr# vs "tate 2f 6adhya Bharat 1:D< 1eligious practices or performances of acts in pursuance of religious beliefs which are guaranteed under )rticle 2D91) and )rticle 269b) sub*ect to the limitations of public order$ morality and health and the limitations stated in )rticle 2D91)$ are religious practices and performances according to the doctrines of that religion# (herefore$ so long as the installation of a "hivlinga in public Cain temple and the worship of it by 5indus therein is repugnant to the doctrine of Cainism$ the introduction of a "hivlinga in the temple would be in conflict with the fundamental right guaranteed under the )rticles referred to above$ even if at any time contrary to the doctrine a "hivling was introduced$ in the temple some how or other$ and worshipped by 5indus# Plaitiff argued that action of the opponents as well as the placing of the "hivling therein was arbitrary$ unlawful and in$ breach of his fundamental rights under )rticles 2D and 26 of the Constitution of India# (he action of the opponents in placing an article purporting to be a "hivling on 26th /ovember$ 1:D=$ in the temple constituted a clear infraction of the fundamental rights of the petitioners as Cains under )rticle 2D91) of the Constitution to enter and worship in the temple according to the tenets of Cainism and that both these petitions ought to be granted# We accordingly made an order directing the opponents not to restrain the petitioners from entering the temple for worship and to remove forthwith the "hivling which they had placed in the temple on 26th /ovember$ 1:D=$ and further directing them to pay costs of the petitions to the petitioners# An organisation of "omen files a "rit petition against the conduct of 'eauty contest as the contest is repugnant to the dignity and decency of "omen and hence violative of Art. ,4 of the constitution ) %ecide. Refer $ handra Rajakumari And Anr. vs ommissioner 1f Police, ... on ,; 1ctober, 4--; "everal important issues concerning the fundamental right to speech and e-pression under )rticle 1:91) 9a) and the scope of the restrictions in )rticle 1:92) in the interests of Edecency and moralityE arise in this case# Muestion arises as to what is EobsceneE# (he scope of *udicial review in this area also falls for consideration# ) beauty contest in any form would be public entertainment within the meaning of he 1ules relating to places of public entertainment in the City of 5yderabad 1 D1 3 rained under "ection 21 of the 5yderabad City Police )ct 1 =@ 3 and re.uires Permission of the Commissioner of Police under 1ule 6 and also licence by virtue of 1ule 1>6 and 1>@ of the said 1ules and it is totally governed by such rules# (he police authorities thereunder have been empowered to deal with such contests in accordance with the rules# It becomes ob*ectionable performance within the meaning of "ection 2 if the 2b*ectionable Performances )ct$ 1:D6 if it is grossly indecent$ scurrilous or obscene or intended for blac' mailing# (he ?overnment is empowered to prohibit the contest as ob*ectionable performance under "ection of the said )ct and the 4istrict Collector 9of the 4istrict)$ Commissioner of Police 9for the twin cities of 5yderabad and "ecunderabad) may prohibit the contest under "ection = of the said )ct and pass appropriate orders if it is li'ely to lead to breach of peace and when it is ob*ectionable under "ection 2 of the said )ct# It is also punishable under "ections 6 and < of the said )ct and all the offenders of such an offence including the abettors directly and indirectly or open for

prosecution and conviction for such an offence# (he authorities under the )ct are entitled to e-ercise all or any of the powers under the provisions of the )ct with a right of appeal to the 5igh Court under "ection 11 of the )ct as an alternative remedy to be e-hausted before approaching the 5igh Court under )rticle 226 of the Constitution# Court or "tate can impose reasonable restrictions# (he contest shall be held in a public$ place to accommodate the members of the public from all important sections of the society$ but may regulate admission to maintain discipline and law and order by having entry either by invitations or by any other reasonable method# (he contest shall not be repugnant to public morality and decency which the right thin'ing people may not disapprove and shall not be derogatory of the dignity of the woman of Indian culture and society# It is hoped that the ?overnment will bring out an appropriate legislation to deal with such contests in specific terms having due regard to the seriousness involved in the issue of the human rights of women in addition to legal and constitutional rights which should be preserved and protected# (ill such a legislation is brought out$ the stipulations in this Cudgment shall be operative to be mandatorily followed by the ?overnment and the appropriate authorities# A rule reserving ;< percent of the seats in the post)graduate medical course to %elhi 8niversity medical graduates and keeping 5< percent open to all, including the %elhi 8niversity graduates "as challenged by a medical graduate from =erala 8niversity as violative of Articles 4> and 4?. %ecide#

Refer$ 7agdish Saran 9 1rs vs 8nion 1f *ndia

(he petitioner in his writ petition under )rticle 2 challenged the rule as violative of )rticles 1= and 16 of the Constitution and sought the courtEs writ to direct the +niversity to admit him to the 6#4# Course in 4ermatology# It was contended that the +niversity was sustained by Central ?overnment finances$ collected from the whole country and the benefits must li'ewise belong toall .ualified students from everywhere# (he +niversity *ustified the reservation on the ground of e-clusivism practised by every other +niversity by forbidding 4elhi +niversity graduates from getting admission in their colleges and also on account of the reasonableness of institutional continuity in educational pursuits for students who enter a university for higher studies# (he class which en*oys reservation must be educationally handicapped# (he reservation must be geared to getting over the handicap# (he rationale of reservation must be in the case of medical students$ removal of regional or class inade.uacy or li'e disadvantage# (he .uantum of reservation should not be e-cessive or societally in*urious$ measured by the over7all competency of the end7 product$ vi,# 4egree7holders# (he basis of the reservation is that the candidate for admission to the post7graduate classes is a medical graduate of the same university# (he relation7ship is institutional# (here is sufficient validity in that criterion as a basis of classification under )rticle 1=# (he honourable "upreme Court of India$ stated that reserving per cent seats for institutional candidates was in effect 1>> per cent reservation for sub*ects$ which was declared ultra vires the Constitution$ and$ hence$ was struc' down