Keshavanandabharati case-the word "law" in Article 13(2) does not include amendments to the Constitution.-the power to amend does not include the power to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution to the extent of changing its identity.-the power of amendment under Article 368 is plenary with no implied or inherent limitations and that it includes the power to add, alter or repeal the various Articles of the Constitution not excluding those relating to fundamental rights. SANKARI PRASAD CASE-a clear demarcation between ordinary law which is made in exercise of legislative power, and constitutional law which is made in exercise of constituent power-an ordinary law depends for its validity on its conformity with their Constitution, constitutional law is independent of any such conformityMINERVA MILLS CASE-the power of judicial review cannot be dispensed with but the Parliament could, in place of the High Courts, substitute another alternative institutional mechanism for judicial review-judicial review has been conclusively held to be part of thebasic structureof the Constitution.S.R BOMMAI v. UOI- Article 356 can be invoked only in cases where non-compliance with the Constitution is of such a nature that it results in situations which create an impasse and are not capable of being remedied and where governance of the State has become impossible.- a Presidential proclamation issued under Article 356 of the Constitution is not completely beyond judicial review.-There was a divergent view upon the area and extent to which judicial review and justifiability of the Presidential proclamation.However it can be inferred that "even if part of the material is irrelevant, the court cannot interfere so long as there is some material which is relevant to the action taken"is to be found only in the judgments of Justices Jeevan Reddy and Agrawal and is expressed in their conclusion No. 7.However, this view can be regarded as the view of the majority and a declaration of the law by the Supreme Court inasmuch as Justice Pandian agrees with it and there is no dissent from this view by Justices Sawant and Kuldip Singh.- State legislative assembly cannot be dissolved merely upon issue of Presidential proclamation and before Parliamentary approval is accorded as required by Article 356(3)- another important question was the proper method for testing the strength of the Ministry and to determine whether it has lost or still retains the confidence of the House. The majority view is that the floor of the House is the sole constitutionally ordained forum. The assessment of the strength of the Ministry is capable of being demonstrated and ascertained publicly in the House. Hence when such demonstration is possible, it is not open to bypass it and instead depend upon the subjective satisfaction of the Governor or the President. This rule can be departed from only in an extraordinary situation where because of all-pervasive violence a free vote is not possible in the House-violation of a basic feature of the Constitution, including the secular features of the Constitution, is a valid ground for exercise of power under Article356ASHOK KUMAR THAKUR v. UNION OF INDIA-approved the 93rd Amendment to the Constitution of India and the consequential Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006. This enabling legislation (engineered by Arjun Singh) reserves an additional (i.e in addition to the 22.5 percent reserved for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes) 27 percent of seats in all of the country Central government promoted institutions of higher education for OBC students.REBERUBARI v. UNION OF INDIA To cede away a territory art. 368 procedures must be followed and the same cannot be done through Art 3.Bhikaji v. state of MP-the word 'void' In Art. 13means void to the extent of the inconsistency with afundamental right and the language of the article makes itclear that the entire operation of an inconsistent Act isnot wiped out. It applies to past transactions and therights and liabilities accruing therefrom and continues evenafter the commencement of the Constitution to apply to non-citizens.- the portion of state law repugnant to central law is not dead ,it does not become ultra vires in whole or in part , it is eclipsed and if the central law were to be repealed at any time it would again become operative TMA PAI FOUNDATION VS STATE OF KARNATAKA In state aided denomination institution, religious instruction on voluntary basis is permitted. Art. 28(3) supplement Art30(1). Art 29(1) does not refer to any religion Defined educational institutes as institutes imparting education at all level including from primary to postgraduate and professional courses. Art. 30 includes the right to affiliation or recognition of minority institution. Regulation can be imposed on the educational institutes in granting affiliation as it is for the efficiency of the institute. Linguistic and religious minorities are covered by the expression "minority" under Article 30 of the Constitution.

INDIRA GANDHI NEHRU v. RAJ NARAYAN-the legislature can validate the tax declared illegal by the court, the legislature must remove, if it can, the ineffectiveness or illegality. It is not mere sufficient to declare the decision of the court not binding for that is tantamount to reversing the decision given in exercise of judicial power which legislature does not possess.MP GOPALKRISHNAN NAIR v. STATE OF KERALA Art 26(c) and (d) do not create right in any denomination which it never had, they merely safeguard the continuance of the right which the denomination already had.ASHOK KUMAR Thakur vs UNION OF iNdia The constitutional amendment act 2005 ( 93rd ) doesnot violates the basic structure of the constitution so far as it is related to aided educational institute subject to the exclusion of creamy layer. Art 15(5) of the constitution is to be taken as an enabling provision to carry certain mandates and hence its constitutionally valid and does not exclude art 15(4). Art 21 A is most imp. Right and stands above other rights as ones ability to enforce FR flows from education. Upheld the constitutionality of amendment to Art.15 by inserting Art15(5), it was held that the object of social justice incorporated in preamble and DP has been secured by including Art15(5) as a FR . No distinction can be made b/t FR and DP . Art 16(4) must be read with Art 335. Though in Art 335 OBC are not included , but even OBc are covered by thr thrust of Art 335.STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. CPDC Judicial review has been characterised as a basic feature of the constitution Union of state means federation of state The FR of india gives few safeguard to minorities, outlawing discrimination and protecting religious freedom and cultural right. These rights cannot be abrogated by any constitutional provision. Any law that abrogate these rights are violates of basic structure. The power of judicial review vested in Art 32 and 226 constitutes the basic structure of the consti.STATE TRADING CORPORATION v. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER Company might have nationality which ordinarily is determined by the place of its incorporation but it does not have citizenship. A foreigner enjoys no right under Art. 19. Art. 19 confers FR on the citizen and on non -citizen of IndiaMAGANBHAIISHARBHAI PATEL etc. v. UNION OF INDIA A constitutional amendment is necessary in a case where de jure and de facto Indian territory is ceded to a foreign territory but in case of boundary settlement dispute is on diff footing and is matter rest with executive. Settlement of boundary dispute cannot be regarded as ceding of territory. Boundary dispute can be settled by implementing a award without amendment. A foreign as well as Indian citizen are equally liable to be expelled under list I of seventh schedule.CONSUMER EDUCATION SOCIETY v. UOI-amendment act retrospectively remove the disqualified with regard to certain enumerated offices, any member who was holding such office of profit was freed from disqualification retrospectively. - as of the date of the passage of the amendment act none of the members who were holding such offices had been declared to be disqualified by the president . Section 4(2) was not attracted and consequently they continued as member- a particular member of parliament can be disqualified only after the president decide that member has incurred an alleged disqualification.- a long decision is on page no. 39 of MP JAIN - a declaration by the president under Art. 103(1) in the case of a disqualification under Art. 102(1) and a declaration by the speaker or the Chairman under para 6 of the tenth schedule in the case of disqualification unde art 102(2) is a condition precedent for vacancy of the seat.RMDC v. UOI Price competition have been held to be gambling within entry 34. Doctrine of severability has been explained Beeting and gambling is outside the perview of Art19(1)g . An unconstitutional statute is void since its inception and is regarded as non-est.RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD V MOHANLAL State electricity board is authoritySUKHDEV v BHAGATRAM-explained empiric adjudication that is a court adjudge only concrete cases and do not indulge in pronouncing abstract, theoretical principles.RAMAN D SHETTY V INTERNATINAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY International airport authority was brought under Art 12 Important few points are given in page no 1591 of MP jainSOM PRAKASH V UOI A company was held to fall under Art 12. writ can be issued to a non statutorygov. com. Registered under companies act.AJAY HASIA V KHALID MUJIB guidelines were laid down to include a body under Art 12.OLGA TELLIS V BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FR cannot be waived. There can be no estoppel agaist the consti. Which is paramount law of land. Art 21 is not mere animal existence, it mean something more . DPSP must be regarded as equally fundamental to the content and meaning of FR State can deprive a person of his livelihood with accordance to just and fair procedure established by law.UUNIKRISHNAN VS STATE OF AP Social. Economic and social changes in the country may entail to recognise new rights - a private educational institute even though recognised by a university does not fall under Art 12 Right to education is impled from right to life and liberty FR must be construed in lights of DPSP.PRADEEP KUMAR VISWAS V UNION OI It did not considered the test led down in Ajay hasia to be rigid set of principles CSIR is an authority under Art 12