... In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [(1997) SCC 1 416], a Constitution Bench of this Court held that there is no straitjacket formula for computation of damages and we find that there is no uniformity or yardstick followed in awarding damages for violation of fundamental rights. In Rudul Sah case [Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141] this Court used the terminology ’palliative’ for measuring the damages and the formula of ’adhoc’ was applied. In Sebastian Hongray case [Se bastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 82] the expression used by this Court for determining the monetary compensation was ’exemplary’ costs and the formula adopted was ’punitive’. In Bhim Singh case [Bhim Singh v. State of J & K, (1985) 4 SCC 677], the expression used by the Court was ’compensation’ and the method adopted was ’tortious formula’. In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [(1997) SCC 1 416] the expression used by this Court for determining the compensation was ’monetary compensation’. The formula adopted was ’cost to cost’ method. Courts have not, therefore, adopted a uniform criterion since no statutory formula has been laid down.”
tracted from: Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association (2011) 14 SCC 481
The public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private law proceedings. The relief of monetary compensation, as exemplary damages, in proceedings under article 32 by the Supreme Court or under article 226 by the High Courts, for established infringement of the indefeasible right guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in __________ and is based on the strict liability for contravention of the guaranteed basic and indefeasible rights of the citizen:
Show Hint
- Public law.
- Private law.
- Civil law.
- All the above.
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
The question asks to identify the branch of law under which the remedy of monetary compensation is awarded by constitutional courts (Supreme Court and High Courts) for the violation of fundamental rights, specifically Article 21.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The passage explicitly distinguishes the compensation awarded by constitutional courts from that awarded in "private tort claims." Proceedings under Articles 32 and 226 are remedies against the State and its instrumentalities for the violation of constitutional rights. This is the classic domain of Public Law, which governs the relationship between the individual and the state.
- Private law deals with relationships between private individuals (e.g., contract law, tort law between citizens).
- Civil law is a broad category that includes private law, but Public Law is the more specific and accurate term for constitutional remedies against the State.
- The remedy is a public law remedy because it enforces the public duty of the state to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens. Therefore, the remedy is available in Public law.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The relief of monetary compensation for the infringement of fundamental rights is a remedy available in public law.
Choose the IN-CORRECT proposition about 'constitutional tort':
Show Hint
- In essence, it attributes vicarious liability on the State for acts and omissions of its agents which result in violation of fundamental rights of an individual or group.
- Constitutional law and tort law came to be merged by the Supreme Court which began allowing successful petitioners to recover monetary damages from the State for infraction of their fundamental rights.
- The causal connection between the act or omission and the resultant infraction of fundamental rights, is central to any determination of an action of constitutional tort.
- The doctrine of sovereign immunity absolutely protects the State from liability for all acts of its servants, including those that violate fundamental rights.
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
The question asks to identify the false statement among the given propositions about the doctrine of 'constitutional tort'.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Let's analyze each proposition:
(A) This is correct. Constitutional tort is based on the principle that the State is vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its employees that lead to a violation of a citizen's fundamental rights.
(B) This is correct. The Supreme Court of India, through its judicial activism, developed this remedy by blending principles of tort law (compensation for wrongs) with constitutional law (enforcement of fundamental rights).
(C) This is correct. To establish a claim for constitutional tort, the petitioner must prove a clear and direct link (causation) between the wrongful act of the state official and the violation of their fundamental right.
(D) This is incorrect. The entire jurisprudence of constitutional tort was developed to circumvent the archaic doctrine of sovereign immunity. In landmark cases like Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, the Supreme Court has unequivocally held that the defense of sovereign immunity is not available to the State in cases of violation of fundamental rights, especially the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The statement that sovereign immunity absolutely protects the State from liability for fundamental rights violations is incorrect. In fact, the opposite is true.
Which of the following cases is NOT related to constitutional tort:
Show Hint
- Kaushal Kishor v State of Uttar Pradesh 2023 INSC 4.
- Bombay Hospital \ & Medical Research Centre v Asha Jaiswal 2021 INSC 801.
- Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association (2011) 14 SCC 481.
- DK Basu v State of WB [(1997) SCC 1 416.
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The question asks to identify the case that does not primarily deal with the concept of 'constitutional tort', which involves state liability for violation of fundamental rights.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
(A) Kaushal Kishor v State of Uttar Pradesh (2023): This case dealt with the extent of freedom of speech and whether fundamental rights can be enforced against persons other than the State. While it is a significant constitutional law case, its primary focus is not on the award of monetary compensation under constitutional tort. However, it is deeply rooted in public constitutional law.
(B) Bombay Hospital \ & Medical Research Centre v Asha Jaiswal (2021): This case concerns medical negligence and the liability of a private hospital. This falls squarely within the domain of private tort law and consumer protection law, not constitutional tort, as the primary defendant is a private entity, and the action is not for a violation of fundamental rights by the State.
(C) Municipal Corporation of Delhi... v Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association (2011): The very passage is extracted from this case. It is a landmark judgment where the Supreme Court awarded compensation against state instrumentalities for their negligence leading to the Uphaar Cinema fire, thus affirming the principles of constitutional tort.
(D) DK Basu v State of WB (1997): This is a seminal case on custodial violence and torture. The passage explicitly mentions it as a case where the court dealt with awarding 'monetary compensation' for the violation of fundamental rights, making it a classic example of constitutional tort.
Comparing the options, the Bombay Hospital case is the most distinct as it is a private law dispute about medical negligence, whereas constitutional tort is a public law remedy against the State.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The case of Bombay Hospital \ & Medical Research Centre v Asha Jaiswal is not related to constitutional tort; it is a case of medical negligence under private law.
Which of the following propositions is/are CORRECT about the award of damages in cases where there is violation of fundamental rights:
Show Hint
- Constitutional courts can in appropriate cases of serious violation of life and liberty of the individuals award punitive damages.
- Owing to lack of legislation, the Courts dealing with the cases of tortious claims against State and its officials are not following a uniform pattern while deciding those claims and this, at times, leads to undesirable consequences and arbitrary fixation of compensation amount.
- Both (A) and (B).
- Neither (A) nor (B).
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The question asks to identify the correct statement(s) regarding the award of damages for fundamental rights violations, based on the provided passage and general legal principles.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
(A) The passage mentions the Sebastian Hongray case, where the court used the term 'exemplary' costs and the formula was 'punitive'. Punitive or exemplary damages are awarded to punish the wrongdoer (the State, in this case) and deter future violations. This is considered appropriate in cases of egregious violations of fundamental rights like life and liberty. Thus, this statement is correct.
(B) The passage explicitly states, "...there is no system or method to measure the damages...", "...no straitjacket formula...", and "...Courts have not, therefore, adopted a uniform criterion since no statutory formula has been laid down." This directly supports the proposition that the lack of legislation leads to a non-uniform pattern in awarding compensation. Thus, this statement is also correct.
(C) Since both propositions (A) and (B) are correct and supported by the passage, this is the most accurate answer.
Step 3: Final Answer:
Both statements (A) and (B) are correct propositions regarding the award of damages for the violation of fundamental rights.
The principle of sovereign immunity of the State for the tortious acts of its servant, has been held to be __________ in the case of violation of fundamental rights:
Show Hint
- Always applicable.
- Inapplicable.
- A good defence.
- Occasionally applicable.
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The question asks about the applicability of the doctrine of sovereign immunity as a defense for the State when its actions lead to a violation of a citizen's fundamental rights.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The doctrine of sovereign immunity is an old common law principle that "the King can do no wrong," meaning the state cannot be sued in its own courts without its consent. However, the Supreme Court of India, in its role as the guardian of the Constitution, has significantly diluted this doctrine in the context of fundamental rights.
Starting with cases like Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and firmly established in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, the Supreme Court has held that the State cannot claim sovereign immunity as a defense to a proceeding under Article 32 or 226 for the violation of fundamental rights. The Court reasoned that the State has a constitutional duty to protect these rights, and it must compensate the victim if it fails in this duty. Therefore, the principle is considered inapplicable in such cases.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The principle of sovereign immunity has been held to be inapplicable in cases involving the violation of fundamental rights.
Top Questions on Constitutional Laws
SEBI was established as India’s principal capital markets regulator with the aim to pro tect the interest of investors in securities and promote the development and regulation of the securities market in India. SEBI is empowered to regulate the securities market in India by the SEBI Act 1992, the SCRA and the Depositories Act 1996. SEBI’s powers to regulate the securities market are wide and include delegated legislative, administrative, and adjudicatory powers to enforce SEBI’s regulations. SEBI exercises its delegated legislative power by inter alia framing regulations and appropriately amending them to keep up with the dynamic nature of the securities’ market. SEBI has issued a number of regulations on various areas of security regulation which form the backbone of the framework governing the securities market in India. Section 11 of the SEBI Act lays down the functions of SEBI and expressly states that it ”shall be the duty of the Board to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate the securities market, by such measures as it thinks fit”. Fur ther, Section 30 of the SEBI Act empowers SEBI to make regulations consistent with the Act. Significantly, while framing these regulations, SEBI consults its advisory committees consisting of domain experts, including market experts, leading market players, legal experts, technol ogy experts, retired Judges of this Court or the High Courts, academicians, representatives of industry associations and investor associations. During the consultative process, SEBI also in vites and duly considers comments from the public on their proposed regulations. SEBI follows similar consultative processes while reviewing and amending its regulations.
(Extracted, with edits and revision, from the judgement in Vishal Tiwari v. Union Of India, [2024] 1 S.C.R. 171)- CLAT PG - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Constitutional Laws
“The power to pardon is a part of the constitutional scheme, and we have no doubt, in our mind, that it should be so treated also in the Indian Republic. It has been reposed by the people through the Constitution in the Head of the State, and enjoys high status. It is a constitutional responsibility of great significance, to be exercised when occasion arises in accordance with the discretion contemplated by the context. It is not denied, and indeed it has been repeatedly affirmed in the course of argument by learned counsels appearing for the Petitioner that the power to pardon rests on the advice tendered by the Executive to the President, who subject to the provisions of Article 74(1) of the Constitution, must act in accordance with such advice......”
We are of the view that it is open to the President in the exercise of the power vested in him by Article 72 of the Constitution to scrutinise the evidence on the record of the criminal case and come to a different conclusion from that recorded by the court in regard to the guilt of, and sentence imposed on the accused. In doing so, the President does not amend or modify or supersede the judicial record. The judicial record remains intact, and undisturbed. The President acts in a wholly different plane from that in which the Court acted. He acts under a constitutional power, the nature of which is entirely different from the judicial power and cannot be regarded as an extension of it. This is so, notwithstanding that the practical effect of the Presidential act is to remove the stigma of guilt from the accused or to remit the sentence imposed on him.
It is apparent that the power under Article 72 entitles the President to examine the record of evidence of the criminal case and to determine for himself whether the case is one deserving the grant of the relief falling within that power. We are of opinion that the President is entitled to go into the merits of the case notwithstanding that it has been judicially concluded by the consideration given to it by this Court. In Kehar Singh v. Union of India, 1989 SC, this court stated that the same obviously means that the affected party need not be given the reasons. The question whether reasons can or cannot be disclosed to the Court when the same is challenged was not the subject-matter of consideration. In any event, the absence of any obligation to convey the reasons does not mean that there should not be legitimate or relevant reasons for passing the order.
Extract from the judgment of Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India 2014 (3) SCC 1- CLAT PG - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Constitutional Laws
To recall, the petitioners while challenging the 1951 and 1965 amendments to the AMU Act in Azeez Basha argued that the amendments were violative of the right to administration guaran teed by Article 30(1). The Union of India responded to the argument with the submission that the Muslim minority cannot claim the right to administration since it did not ’establish’ the institution. Opposing this argument, the petitioners in Azeez Basha, submitted that Article 30(1) guarantees the ’right to administer’ an educational institution to minorities even if it was not established by them, if by ”some process, it had been administering the same before the Constitution came into force.” The argument of the petitioners was rejected. This Court held that the words ”establish” and ”administer” must be read conjunctively, that is, the guarantee of the right to administration is contingent on the establishment of the institution by religious or linguistic minorities...
The issue before this Bench is the indicia for an educational institution to be a minority educa tional institution. Should it be proved that the institution was established by the minority, or it was administered by the minority, or both? The petitioners and the respondents agree that the words ’establish’ and ’administer’ must be read conjunctively. They argue that administration is a sequitur to establishment. However, they disagree on the test to be applied to identify a minority education institution. The petitioners argue that the only indicia for a minority ed ucational institution is that it must be established by a minority, while the respondents argue that the dual test of establishment and administration must be satisfied.
(Extracted with edits and revisions from Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal & Ors, 2024 SC 8)- CLAT PG - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Constitutional Laws
- If the State Waqf Board composition requires non-Muslim members exceeding the limit set by the Amendment, can it be challenged under Articles 25, 26, and 14?
- CLAT PG - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Constitutional Laws
- Which Article permits reasonable restrictions for decency/obscenity?
- CLAT PG - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Constitutional Laws
Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam
The document presents a critique of the United Nations (UN) organization, arguing that it has failed to carry out its charter-mandated tasks, specifically to ”maintain international peace and security” and ”to achieve international cooperation” in solving global problems. The author notes growing public frustration with catastrophic humanitarian situations and the failure of peace-keeping operations, leading to widespread scepticism about the possibility of ”revitalization”.
UN Reform Approaches
Discussions on UN reform are divided into two main categories: the conservative approach and the radical approach.
1. Conservative Approach:
The conservative view considers the existing Charter ”practically untouchable” and believes in improving ”collective security” as defined in Chapter VII. Key positions include:
- US Position: Prioritizes its own interests, supports better management and the creation of an Inspector General, favours enlarging the Security Council (to include Germany and Japan, mainly for financing peace-keeping), and associates the UN with regional organizations like NATO for peace enforcement. The US remains reluctant to allow full application of Chapter VII and views collective security restrictively.
- Secretary-General’s Position (Boutros Ghali): Advocated for the full implementation of ’collective security’ as envisaged in 1945, including the use of the Military Staff Committee (Article 47) and the conclusion of special agreements (Article 43) for providing armed forces. He also proposed ’peace enforcement units’ under the command of the Secretary-General and wider use of ’preventive diplomacy’. The report candidly recognized the Security Council’s incapacity to deal with threats from a major power.
2. Radical Approach:
The radical approach criticizes the principles of the present system and proposes an overhaul. It reflects increasing doubts about the value of the Charter’s collective security system, especially in intra-State conflicts. Radical proposals include:
- Establishing an Economic Security Council.
- Modifying the Charter with less reluctance.
- Reforming the IMF and World Bank.
- Developing a new global security system .
- The creation of a consultative parliamentary assembly at the world level.
Future Outlook:
The author asserts that no major or minor reform has any chance of being implemented now, primarily because the Charter’s amendment procedures (requiring a two-thirds majority including all five permanent Security Council members) preclude agreement. However, he concludes that the continuing deterioration of the global situation, driven by economic integration, rising inequality, and intra-State conflicts, will inevitably lead the political establishment to define a new global institutional structure. This future debate will become highly political.
- CLAT PG - 2026
- International Law
“Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act says that when a party to a contract promises to do a certain thing within a specified time but fails to do so, the contract or so much of it as has not been performed, becomes voidable at the option of the promisee if the intention of the parties was, that time should be of the essence of the contract. If time is not the essence of the contract, the contract does not become voidable by the failure to do such thing on or before the specified time but the promisee is entitled to compensation from the promisor for any loss occasioned to him by such failure. Further, if in case of a contract voidable on account of the promisor’s failure to perform his promise within the time agreed and the promisee accepts performance of such promise at any time other than that agreed, the promisee cannot claim compensation for any loss occasioned by the non-performance of the promise at the time agreed, unless, at the time of such acceptance he gives notice to the promisor of his intention to do so.
Sections 73 and 74 deal with consequences of breach of contract. Heading of Sec tion 73 is compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract. When a contract is broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive from the party who has broken the contract compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach or which the parties knew when they made the contract to be likely to result from the breach of it. On the other hand, Section 74 deals with compen sation for breach of contract where penalty is stipulated for. When a contract is broken, if a sum is mentioned in the contract as the amount to be paid in case of such breach or if the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty, the party complaining of the breach is entitled whether or not actually damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby, to receive from the party who has broken the contract reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named or the penalty stipulated for.”
tracted from: Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v Software Technol ogy Parks of India 2025 INSC 574- CLAT PG - 2026
- Contract Law
“Law treats all contracts with equal respect and unless a contract is proved to suffer from any of the vitiating factors, the terms and conditions have to be enforced regardless of the relative strengths and weakness of the parties.
Section 28 of the Contract Act does not bar exclusive jurisdiction clauses. What has been barred is the absolute restriction of any party from approaching a legal forum. The right to legal adjudication cannot be taken away from any party through contract but can be relegated to a set of Courts for the ease of the parties. In the present dispute, the clause does not take away the right of the employee to pursue a legal claim but only restricts the employee to pursue those claims before the courts in Mumbai alone.
... the Court must already have jurisdiction to entertain such a legal claim. This limb pertains to the fact that a contract cannot confer jurisdiction on a court that did not have such a jurisdiction in the first place.”
Extracted from: Rakesh Kumar Verma v HDFC Bank Ltd 2025 INSC 473- CLAT PG - 2026
- Contract Law
- It is well recognized that actionable negligence in context of medical profession involves three constituents (i) duty to exercise due care; (ii) breach of duty and (iii) consequential damage. However, a simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident is not sufficient proof of negligence on part of the medical professional so long as the doctor follows the acceptable practice of the medical profession in discharge of his duties. He cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative treatment or course of treatment was available or that more skilled doctors were there who could have administered better treatment.
A medical professional may be held liable for negligence only when he is not pos sessed with the requisite qualification or skill or when he fails to exercise reasonable skill which he possesses in giving the treatment. None of the above two essential conditions for establishing negligence stand satisfied in the case at hand as no ev idence was brought on record to prove that Dr. Neeraj Sud had not exercised due diligence, care or skill which he possessed in operating the patient and giving treatment to him. When reasonable care, expected of the medical professional, is extended or rendered to the patient unless contrary is proved, it would not be a case for actionable negligence.
tracted with edits and revisions from Neeraj Sud v Jaswinder Singh 2024 INSC 825- CLAT PG - 2026
- Law of Torts
Today, in the year 2025, we have been experiencing the drastic consequences of large scale destruction of environment on human lives in the capital city of our country and in many other cities. At least for a span of two months every year, the residents of Delhi suffocate due to air pollution. The AQI level is either dangerous or very dangerous. They suffer in their health. The other leading cities are not far behind. The air and water pollution in the cities is ever increasing. Therefore, coming out with measures such as the 2021 Official Memorandum is violative of fundamental rights of all persons guaranteed under Article 21 to live in a pollution free environment. It also infringes the right to health guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The 2021 OM talks about the concept of development. Can there be development at the cost of environment? Conservation of environment and its improvement is an essential part of the concept of development. Therefore, going out of the way by issuing such OMs to protect those who have caused harm to the environment has to be deprecated by the Courts which are under a constitutional and statutory mandate to uphold the fundamental right under Article 21 and to protect the environment. In fact, the Courts should comedown heavily on such attempts. As stated earlier, the 2021 OM deals with project proponents who were fully aware of the EIA notification and who have taken conscious risk to flout the EIA notification and go ahead with the construction/continuation/expansion of projects. They have shown scant respect to the law and their duty to protect the environment. Apart from violation of Article 21, such action is completely arbitrary which is violative article 14 of the Constitution of India, besides being violative of the 1986 Act and the EIA notification.
(Extracted with edits from Vanashakti v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 718)- CLAT PG - 2026
- Environmental Law