1. Principle-1: In order to be eligible to appear in the semester examination, a student is required to attend, under all circumstances, at least 70% of the total classes held in that semester as per University rules.
Principle-2: University under its lawful powers exercised by a lawful and competent university authority, may subject to its satisfaction relax or stern the rule of prescribed attendance.
Facts: Rajeev, an economically poor but a very brilliant student of LLB final semester, while going to his university by cycle received some leg injuries in road accident. Consequently Rajeev could not attend his classes for one week as he was advised rest his doctor for that period. He wrote a letter a Vice-Chancellor stating his circumstances with a request to relax the rule in his favour. His application was positively considered in his favour. In the meantime, there was a change in office of Vice Chancellor and the new Vice Chancellor quashed the sanction granted in Rajeev's favour by his predecessor. Rajeev failed to achieve 70% attendance essential to appear in the examination and therefore, he was debarred from appearing in the examination. Rajeev challenges this decision in the court of law.
a. Rajeev will succeed in the court of law because his application was initially accepted but was arbitrarily rejected/ quashed subsequently.
b. Rajeev will definitely get favour of the court on humanitarian ground as he comes from an economically poor family and may not afford to take readmission.
c. Rajeev will not succeed as he could very easily fulfil eligibility criteria for appearing in the examination by being reasonably regular in the class throughout the semester.
d. Rajeev will not succeed as the subsequent Vice Chancellor is competent to reject his granted application.
2. Principle: The Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute- (a) between the Government of India and one or more States; or (b) between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other; or (c) between two or more States, if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.
Facts: State of Karnataka filed a suit against Union of India before Civil Court, Mysore for recovery of an amount of Rs. 18,687 with interest and cost of damages for delayed delivery of some articles by Indian Railways.
a. Suit is not maintainable since it is a dispute between the Union and a State.
b. Suit is maintainable since Railways is not 'State'.
c. Suit is maintainable since it is dispute arising out of a contract between a carrier and consignee.
d. None of the above.
3. Principle: No person shall be prosecuted and punished twice or more for the same offence.
Facts: Reema is in class X of the R.K Govt. Public school. The school peon Ramadeen used to take care of Reema once school was off, as her father used to come late to receive her from school. She had many a times complained to her father of the behaviour of the peon. Ramadeen in the pretext of taking care of the girl, used to ask for sexual favours from her and also molested her as and when he found that no one was around. Reema's father complained this behaviour of Ramdeen to school Principal and also to Police. Principal terminated Ramadeen and conducted an enquiry. Police also arrested him and put him in lock up. Can Ramadeen plead in court that he has been jeopardised twice?
a. Yes, because he has to suffer termination, as well arrest.
b. No, because termination was just departmental action, and action by police was actual procedure which is required under the law.
c. Ramdeen should be hanged.
d. None of the above.
4. Principle-1: Fundamental rights can only be enforceable against the state.
Principle-2: Institutions which are wholly owned by the government or enjoying the government funding of 51% and above are presumed to be a State.
Facts: M/s Soya Refineries has set up their oil extracting unit in the state of Uttaranchal. The state government of Uttaranchal had issued a government notification for boosting employment in the state which said that the industries which are set up in the Rudrapur Industrial will area will enjoy the subsidy of 200 crores for the rest 5 years. In the 2nd year itself there was acute downturn in the economy because of which the unit has to work with less manpower, in order to ensure its productivity. Therefore, as a measure to react to the competitive market, the unit decides to terminate its employees on random basis. The employees files a petition of violation of fundamental right to livelihood and violation of right to equality. Decide.
a. Writ is maintainable as gross injustice is being caused to the employees.
b. Writ is against a company hence not enforceable.
c. Fundamental rights are not enforceable in court and are necessarily guiding in nature.
d. Writ is filed against a corporate and not the state and hence not enforceable.
5. Principles-1: The Constitution is the supreme law and all laws in violation of the provisions of the Constitution are void.
Principles-2: A client can exercise his fundamental right to have a lawyer of his choice, provided that particular lawyer is in a position to defend him.
Facts: The Constitution of a country confers upon its citizens the fundamental right to be represented by a lawyer of their own choice in the criminal proceedings. A citizen, 'Z', accused of a crime, engaged a famous criminal lawyer 'A' to defend him. Just one day before the trial was to begin 'A' house was raided by income-tax authorities, and he was detained by them in that connection. 'Z' moved a petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court if India that he was entitled to be represented by 'A', and therefore, the latter should be released so as to enable him to argue the former's case. Decide the petition in light of above principles.
a. Z' will succeed because his fundamental right of legal representation is being violated due to detention of the criminal lawyer.
b. The lawyer is not in a reasonable position to defend 'Z', so Z's petition would be rejected.
c. Sunil can hire any other lawyer.
d. None of the above.
Correct Answers:
1. Option d
Solution: Follow the principle strictly, it clearly says a competent authority may relax or stern the rule on attendance. It is immaterial that Rajeev was initially allowed but it is material that a subsequent competent authority rejected the grant of application.
2. Option a
Solution: Technically, (c) is the correct option, but going by the principle, students aren't expected to know this and are supposed to follow the principle. Whatever the nature of dispute may be, it's dispute between Union (Government of India) and State (of Karnataka), hence shall be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. Option b
Solution: Ramadeen cannot be said to have been jeopardized twice because departmental action is different from the punishment prescribed in law.
4. Option d
Solution: Though rights are being violated but it will not amount to violation of fundamental right since the company does not fall within the purview of 'state'.
5. Option b
Solution: Law will take its own course against A and in which 'Z' is not supposed to interfere merely under the pretext of enforcement of his fundamental right to be represented by a lawyer.
