Question Bank

November 5, 2018 @ 2:00 pm
Question Bank

5th November 2018


(1 Question)

Answer questions in NOT MORE than 200 words each. Content of the answer is more important than its length.

Links are provided for reference. You can also use the Internet fruitfully to further enhance and strengthen your answers.


Q1. From certain incidents, such as in case of Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, it is clear that some laws are enforced even after they are declared unconstitutional. Discuss the reasons for the same.


  • In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, as unconstitutional. That decision, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, was heaped with praise by domestic and foreign media alike. Media reports on the continued application of Section 66A lend themselves to a narrative: the oft-maligned police are abusing their power in hamlets to commit the most obvious wrongs. But the facts show that this is far from the truth. From police stations, to trial courts, and all the way up to the High Courts, it has been found Section 66A was still in vogue throughout the legal system.
  • Equally disturbing was the discovery that this issue of applying unconstitutional penal laws long preceded Shreya Singhal and Section 66A. Before the recent decisions that held provisions in the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional (in whole or in part), the Supreme Court had famously done this, in 1983, by striking down Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code in Mithu v. State of Punjab. In 2012, years after Section 303 had been struck down, the Rajasthan High Court intervened to save a person from being hanged for being convicted under that offence.
  • A primary reason for poor enforcement of judicial declarations of unconstitutionality is signal failures between different branches of government. Today, the work of the Supreme Court has firmly placed it within the public consciousness in India. It is common to read reports about the court asking States and other litigants for updates about compliance with its orders (an example being orders in mob lynching petitions). While this monitoring function is one that the court can perform while a litigation is pending, it cannot do so after finally deciding a case, even after directions for compliance are issued. Instead, it needs help from the legislature and executive to ensure its final decisions are enforced.
  • Commonly, in this context one thinks of active non-compliance that can undermine the work of courts — for instance, the aftermath of the Sabarimala verdict. But these publicised acts of defiance have hidden what is a systemic problem within the Indian legal system: there exists no official method for sharing information about such decisions, even those of constitutional import such as Shreya Singhal.
  • For any bureaucratic structure to survive, it needs working communication channels for sharing information. The same analogy applies here. The probability of decisions taken at the highest echelons of a system being faithfully applied at the lowest rungs greatly depends on how efficiently word gets to the ground. At present, even getting information across about court decisions is an area where the judiciary needs help. So, unless Parliament amends a statute to remove the provision declared unconstitutional, that provision continues to remain on the statute book. This is why both Sections 66A and 303 are still a part of both the official version of statutes published on India Code and commercially published copies. And while the commercially published versions at least put an asterisk to mention the court decision, no such information is provided in the official India Code version.
  • Besides reading statutes, government officials might consult notifications and circulars issued by relevant Ministries. These notifications are another official method to share information about judgments declaring a provision unconstitutional. But as nothing mandates issuance of these notifications, there is no means to ensure that they are issued.
  • There is a pressing need to move from a system where communication about judicial decisions is at the mercy of initiatives by scrupulous officers, to a method not contingent on human error to the greatest possible extent. The urgency cannot be overstated. Enforcing unconstitutional laws is sheer wastage of public money. But more importantly, until this basic flaw within is addressed, certain persons will remain exposed to denial of their right to life and personal liberty in the worst possible way imaginable. They will suffer the indignity of lawless arrest and detention, for no reason other their poverty and ignorance, and inability to demand their rights.

Leave a comment