📚 LAW STUDENTS © 📚

🔰 Doctrine of Waiver of Fundamental Rights 🔰 https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🎓 Introduction The Doctrine of Waiver means voluntarily giving up a legal right. In Indian constitutional law, however, Fundamental Rights cannot be waived by an individual, because they are guaranteed not only for the benefit of the individual but also to uphold the public policy of protecting democracy and constitutional order. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🎓 Judicial Position in India 👒 Basheshar Nath v. CIT (1959): Landmark case where the Supreme Court held that Fundamental Rights cannot be waived. Even if a person voluntarily gives them up, the State cannot enforce a law violative of Fundamental Rights. 👒 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): Known as the “Right to Livelihood” case. The Court reiterated that citizens cannot waive Fundamental Rights as they form the basic framework of the Constitution. 👒 Behram Khurshid Pesikaka v. State of Bombay (1955): Held that Fundamental Rights are matters of constitutional policy, not individual privilege. Hence, no waiver is allowed. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🎓 Features Fundamental Rights are inalienable and non-negotiable. They are guaranteed by the Constitution for public interest, not merely for individual benefit. Waiver would defeat the very purpose of Part III of the Constitution. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🎓 Contrast with U.S.A. In the U.S., waiver of Fundamental Rights is permissible under certain conditions. India follows a stricter approach: No waiver of Fundamental Rights is valid. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🎓 Conclusion The Doctrine of Waiver of Fundamental Rights is not recognized in India. Fundamental Rights are compulsory guarantees, not privileges to be surrendered. The judiciary consistently holds that even voluntary waiver is void, ensuring the supremacy of the Constitution and protection of democratic values. 📌 Exam tip: Always cite Basheshar Nath v. CIT (1959) as the leading case.

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 applies – a. To any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms or developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj b. To any person who is a Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion, c. To any other person domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion, unless it is proved that any such person would not have been governed by the Hindu law or by any custom or usage as part of that law in respect of any of the matters dealt with herein if this Act had not been passed. d. All of the above Answer by reaction a 👍🏻 b ❤️ c 😁 d 👌🏻

🔰 Doctrine of Severability 🔰 https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 👑 Introduction The Doctrine of Severability means that if a part of a law is unconstitutional because it violates Fundamental Rights, only that offending portion is struck down, while the rest of the statute remains valid and enforceable. This ensures that useful parts of legislation are preserved instead of declaring the entire law void. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 👑 Constitutional Basis Article 13(1) & (2), Constitution of India: Any law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is void “to the extent of such inconsistency.” The phrase forms the foundation of the doctrine. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 👑 Key Case Laws 💍 R.M.D.C. v. Union of India (1957): The Supreme Court applied severability and upheld the valid parts of the Prize Competitions Act while striking down the unconstitutional portions. 💍 A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): Reiterated that only the unconstitutional parts of a law should be struck down, not the entire statute. 💍 Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992): Some parts of the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) were struck down, but the rest was upheld under the doctrine. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 👑 Principles of Severability If the valid and invalid parts are inseparable, the whole law is void. If they are separable, only the invalid part is struck down. The legislature’s intent is crucial in determining separability. The court must see whether the law would still be workable without the unconstitutional part. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 👑 Conclusion The Doctrine of Severability protects the valid portion of laws from being unnecessarily invalidated, thus maintaining legislative intent while upholding Fundamental Rights. 📌 Exam tip: Always write Article 13 and cite R.M.D.C. v. Union of India (1957) when explaining this doctrine.

🔰 Doctrine of Eclipse 🔰 https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🔶 Introduction The Doctrine of Eclipse is a constitutional law principle in India which states that a pre-constitutional law inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights is not void ab initio, but only becomes inoperative (“eclipsed”) to the extent of inconsistency. Such a law remains dormant but is not dead and it can be revived if the inconsistency is removed (for example, by a constitutional amendment). https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🔶 Basis Derived from Article 13(1) of the Constitution, which declares that all pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights shall be void “to the extent of such inconsistency.” Applies only to pre-constitutional laws (laws made before 26th January 1950). https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🔶 Key Case Laws 🔲 Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P. (1955): The Supreme Court applied the doctrine, holding that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are not null and void but merely remain in a dormant state until the inconsistency is removed. 🔲 Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (1959): Clarified that post-constitutional laws violating Fundamental Rights are void ab initio, hence doctrine of eclipse does not apply to them. 🔲 State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills (1974): Held that the doctrine can apply even against non-citizens in some circumstances. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🔶 Features of the Doctrine Applies to pre-constitutional laws only. Such laws are not dead but dormant. Revival possible if the inconsistency is removed. Post-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void from inception and cannot be revived. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🔶 Conclusion The Doctrine of Eclipse balances legal continuity with constitutional supremacy. It prevents wholesale invalidation of pre-constitutional laws while ensuring that Fundamental Rights prevail. 📌 Exam tip: Always mention Bhikaji Narain case (1955) as the leading authority when writing on this doctrine. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

🔰 Fundamental Rights – Short Note 🔰 https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🔷 Introduction Fundamental Rights are enshrined in Part III of the Constitution (Articles 12–35). They guarantee civil liberties to citizens and act as limitations on the arbitrary power of the State, ensuring justice, equality and liberty in a democratic framework. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🔷 Features of Fundamental Rights Justiciable – Enforceable by courts (Art. 32, 226). Not Absolute – Subject to reasonable restrictions. Available Against State (Art. 12), though some apply against private individuals too. Suspension – Can be suspended during Emergency (except Art. 20 & 21). https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🔷 Categories of Fundamental Rights Right to Equality (Art. 14–18): Equality before law, prohibition of discrimination, abolition of untouchability (State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952). Right to Freedom (Art. 19–22): Freedom of speech, movement, profession, etc. (Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 expanded Art. 21). Right against Exploitation (Art. 23–24): Prohibits human trafficking, forced labour and child labour. Right to Freedom of Religion (Art. 25–28): Freedom of conscience, practice and propagation of religion (Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, 1986). Cultural & Educational Rights (Art. 29–30): Protects minorities’ rights to conserve culture and run institutions (T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, 2002). Right to Constitutional Remedies (Art. 32): Allows citizens to move Supreme Court directly. Called the “heart and soul” of the Constitution by Dr. Ambedkar (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973 upheld this as part of Basic Structure). https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🔷 Conclusion Fundamental Rights are the cornerstone of Indian democracy. They safeguard individual dignity and freedom while balancing the needs of social order and national security.