Matching Landmark Indian Cases with Legal Doctrines

This question requires matching prominent Indian legal cases from List-I with associated legal doctrines from List-II.

Case Analysis and Matching:

• Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab: This case primarily discussed the constitutional division of powers between the executive and legislative branches. It is strongly associated with the Doctrine of Separation of Powers (iii).
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India: A pivotal judgment that expanded the interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). It emphasized that any procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable, laying the groundwork for principles of natural justice, including aspects related to procedural fairness like the Doctrine of Post Decisional Hearing (i) in certain administrative contexts.
• Vineet Narain v. Union of India: This case established crucial principles concerning corruption and the conduct of public officials, reinforcing the Doctrine of Public Accountability (ii) of those in power.
• Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation: This judgment dealt with the expectations arising from administrative actions and assurances, clearly linking it to the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation (iv).

Summary of Matches:

Based on the analysis, the correct matches are:

• (a) Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab matches with (iii) Doctrine of separation of powers.
• (b) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India matches with (i) Doctrine of post decisional hearing.
• (c) Vineet Narain v. Union of India matches with (ii) Doctrine of public accountability.
• (d) Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation matches with (iv) Doctrine of legitimate expectation.

Therefore, the correct code is (a)-(iii), (b)-(i), (c)-(ii), (d)-(iv).