Most Important Supreme Court Judgements
A.K. Gopalan Case (1950):
The Supreme Court ruled in A.K.Gopalan v. State of Madras that in Article 21, the expression “Procedure established by law” meant the procedure as laid down in the law as enacted by the Legislature and nothing more. A person could thus be deprived of his ‘life’ or ‘personal liberty’ in accordance with the procedure laid down in the relevant law. The ruling thus meant that a person can be deprived of his life and personal liberty.
Shankari Prasad Case (1951):
In the Shankari Prasad case (1951), the constitutional validity of the First Amendment Act (1951), which curtailed the right to property, was challenged.
Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras Case (1951):
Landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India. This judgement led to the First Amendment of the Constitution of India. It was the first major judgement regarding reservations in India.
The government order had provided caste based reservation in government jobs and college seats. The Supreme Court's verdict held that providing such reservations was in violation of Article 29 (2) of the Indian Constitution.
Berubari Union Case (1960):
This dispute was resolved by the Nehru-Noon Agreement of 1958, whereby half of Berubari Union No. 12 was to be given to Pakistan and the other half adjacent to India was to be retained by India. In addition, four Cooch Behar enclaves contiguous with this part would also have gone to Pakistan.
Golaknath Case (1967):
The 24th amendment was enacted as a reaction to the Golak Nath case, 1967. The Golak Nath ruling led to increased parliamentary authority to amend the Constitution. Through the Amendment, Parliament restored to itself undisputed authority to amend the Constitution, including its repeal.
It restored the absolute power of the Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution including Part III (fundamental rights).
The Act provides that when a Constitution Amendment Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament is presented to the President for his assent, he should give his assent. The president was made duty bound to give assent to a Constitution Amendment Bill when presented to him.
It amends article 13 of the Constitution to make it inapplicable to any amendment of the Constitution under article 368.
Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973):
Kesavananda Bharati, who filed a petition in the Supreme court and the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgement that the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be altered.
In 1970, He filed a case challenging theKerala Government’s attempts to acquire the Mutt’s property, through the Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1963 as amended in 1969.
He had argued that this action violated his fundamental right to religion (Article 25), freedom of religious denomination (Article 26), and right to property (Article 31).
It is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that outlined the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution. Justice Hans Raj Khanna asserted through the Basic Structure doctrine that the constitution possesses a basic structure of constitutional principles and values. The Court overturned the Golaknath v. State of Punjab case. This case had held that constitutional amendments through Article 368 were subject to fundamental rights review only if they affect the ‘basic structure of the Constitution’.
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain Case (1975):
In this case, the Court had to examine the validity of the Thirty Ninth Amendment Act by which Art. 329-A was inserted into the Constitution. 329-A dealt with special provision as to elections to Parliament in the case of Prime Minister and Speaker.
Further some issues were also raised that whether the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1974 and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 are unconstitutional because these Acts destroy or damage basic structure or basic features.
The Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously applied the basic structure doctrine to invalidate Article 329A as it was beyond the amending power of the Parliament and destroyed the basic feature of the Constitution.
Justice Y.V. Chandrachud listed four basic features which he considered unamendable:
i) Sovereign democratic republic status.
ii) Equality of status and opportunity of an individual.
iii) Secularism and freedom of conscience and religion.
iv) ‘Government of laws and not of men’ i.e. the rule of law.
Habeas Corpus Case (1976):
ADM Jabalpur case is a landmark judgement pertaining to Habeas corpus case. This controversial judgement of P.N. Bhagwati was decreed during the Emergency of 1975 to 1977, a person's right to not be unlawfully detained (i.e. habeas corpus) can be suspended.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India Case (1978):
The landmark ruling in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, stands as a bulwark of the Right of Personal Liberty granted by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded "in the public interest'' by an order dated 2 July 1977. When reasons for impounding her passport were sought, the Government of India declined to provide any "in the interests of the general public."
Gandhi filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order on the grounds that it violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The Union responded in their written submissions that her passport was impounded because her presence was likely to be required in connection with legal proceedings before a 'Commission of Inquiry'.
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union Of India Case (1980):
In Minerva Mills Ltd. V. Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled that “judicial review” is a “basic feature” of the constitution and hence, it cannot be amended.
This case again strengthens the Basic Structure doctrine. The judgement struck down two changes made to the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act 1976, declaring them to be violative of the basic structure. The judgement makes it clear that the Constitution, and not the Parliament is supreme.
The Supreme Court held that the Constitution exists on the balance of part III and Part IV. Giving absolute primacy to one over other will disturb the harmony of the Constitution.
Waman Rao Case (1981):
The SC again reiterated the Basic Structure doctrine. It also drew a line of demarcation as April 24th, 1973 i.e., the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgement, and held that it should not be applied retrospectively to reopen the validity of any amendment to the Constitution which took place prior to that date.
Shah Bano Begum Case (1985):
In Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum Case, the petitioner Shahbano had sought maintenance from her husband Mohammad Ahmad Khan, who divorced her after 40 years of their marriage by triple Talaq and denied her regular maintenance. The Supreme Court gave a verdict in favour of Shah Bano by applying section 125 of All Indian Criminal Code, which applied to all citizens of India irrespective of religion. The Court also recommended that a Uniform Civil Code should be set up. The court was of the opinion that a uniform civil code may reduce the discrimination faced by the women from the personal laws. But the Muslim conservatives saw it as an attempt to weaken their cultural identity. The case was so controversial that the Rajiv Gandhi government was panicked by the issue. Rather than showing some political spine, the government enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. This act was passed to nullify the Supreme Court judgement in Shah Bano case and let Muslim Personal Law prevail in matters of divorce. The act maintained that a Muslim woman has the right to maintenance for only the period of iddat (about three months) after the divorce, and thereafter shifted the onus of maintaining her to her relatives or the Wakf Board.
MC Mehta v. Union of India Case (1987):
If an enterprise is permitted to carry on an hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profit, the law must presume that such permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of any accident (including indemnification of all those who suffer harm in the accident) arising on account of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity as an appropriate item of its overheads.
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu Case (1992):
Some members of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly were disqualified by the Speaker of the Assembly under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India, as inserted by the Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act, 1985, on the ground of defection. They challenged the order of the Speaker before the High Court of the. The case was transferred to the Supreme Court of India which upheld the sweeping discretion available to the Speaker in deciding cases of disqualification of MLAs.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India Case (1992):
Article 16 of Indian Constitution says that no citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State.
At the same time, we find that Article 46, which is one of the directive principles of state policy, says that the state should promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people and protect them from social injustice.
But, if the government had done so, it would have been challenged in the court to be discriminatory. So, in order that any special provision that the State may make for the educational, economic or social advancement of any backward class of citizens may not be challenged on the ground of being discriminatory, the government brought the first amendment of the constitution in 1951 which became the foundation bricks of Reservation Policy in India.
SC examined the scope and extent of Article 16(4), which provides for the reservation of jobs in favour of backward classes. It upheld the constitutional validity of 27% reservation for the OBCs with certain conditions (like creamy layer exclusion, no reservation in promotion, total reserved quota should not exceed 50%).
S.R. Bommai Case (1994):
S.R. Bommai was the Chief Minister of the Janata Dal government in Karnataka between August 13, 1988, and April 21, 1989. His government was dismissed under Article 356 of the Constitution and President’s Rule was imposed. The reason for the same being that the Bommai government had lost majority following large-scale defections. The then Governor of Karnataka P. Venkatasubbaiah refused to give Bommai an opportunity to test his majority in the Assembly and imposed President’s rule in the state. Bommai went to court against the Governor’s decision to recommend President’s Rule. The Supreme Court struck down the decision of the Governor and in its verdict clearly laid down the conditions under which state governments may be dismissed.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan Case (1997):
In Vishaka V. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court has declared sexual harassment of a working woman at her place of work as amounting to violation of rights of gender equality and right to life and liberty which is clear violation of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh Case (1997):
Supreme Court’s Samata judgement (1997) nullified all mining leases granted by the State government of Andhra Pradesh in the Scheduled areas and asked it to stop all mining operations, thus protecting the land of tribal people. This judgement is a landmark decision that has since 1997 helped save the scheduled areas and the tribal people in different states. Under schedule 5 of the constitution, the Supreme Court protected the land of the tribal people through this judgement.
The Sabarimala Case (2006):
On August 4, 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a plea in the Supreme Court seeking to ensure entry of female devotees between the age group of 10 to 50 at the Lord Ayyappa Temple at Sabarimala. On September 28, 2018, the Supreme Court passed a verdict that allows entry of women in Sabarimala temple.
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu Case (2007):
This judgement held that if a law is included in the 9th Schedule of the Indian Constitution, it can still be examined and confronted in court. The 9th Schedule of the Indian Constitution contains a list of acts and laws which cannot be challenged in a court of law. The Waman Rao ruling ensured that acts and laws mentioned in the IX schedule till 24 April 1973, shall not be changed or challenged, but any attempt to amend or add more acts to that schedule will suffer close inspection and examination by the judiciary system.
Aruna Shanbaug Case (2011):
The SC ruled that individuals had a right to die with dignity, allowing passive euthanasia with guidelines. The need to reform India’s laws on euthanasia was triggered by the tragic case of a nurse named Aruna Shanbaug who laid in a vegetative state (blind, paralysed and deaf) for 42 years after a sexual assault.
The NOTA Judgement (2013):
This judgement introduced the NOTA (None-Of-The-Above) option for Indian voters.
Lily Thomas v. Union of India Case (2013):
The SC ruled that any MLA or MP who was found guilty of a crime and given a minimum of 2 year imprisonment would cease to be a member of the House with immediate effect.
The Nirbhaya Case (2014):
Nirbhaya is the pseudonym used for the rape victim of the infamous 16 December 2012 Delhi gang rape incident. The victims, a 23-year-old woman, Jyoti Singh, and her male friend, were returning home on the night of 16 December 2012.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Vinay Sharma contesting the denial of the petition for mercy. Delhi court released a death warrant of all four Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case convicts scheduled on March 3, 2020.
A documentary was made on this incident named India's Daughter by Leslee Udwin in 2015.
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India Case (2014):
This case resulted in the recognition of transgender persons as a third gender. The SC also instructed the government to treat them as minorities and expand the reservations in education, jobs, education, etc.
Shreya Singhal Case (2015):
Because of this case, the Supreme Court struck down section 66A of IT Act. Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 made it a punishable offence for any person to send 'grossly offensive' or 'menacing' information using a computer resource or communication device.
Triple Talaq Judgement (2016):
Shayara Bano was the original petitioner in the case after she approached the court in 2016 demanding that the talaq-e-bidat pronounced by her husband be declared as void. She also contended that such unilateral, abrupt and irrevocable form of divorce be declared unconstitutional, arguing that the practice of triple talaq violated the fundamental rights of Muslim women.
The SC outlawed the backward practice of instant ‘triple talaq’, which permitted Muslim men to unilaterally end their marriages by uttering the word “talaq” three times without making any provision for maintenance or alimony.
The Triple Talaq law, enforced by the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government on August 1, 2019, classified giving 'instant divorce' by Muslim men to their wives as a criminal offence. The law prescribes a three-year jail term for a man divorcing his wife through triple talaq.
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union Of India Case (2017):
Landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India, which holds that the right to privacy is protected as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India Case (2018):
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India in 2018 that decriminalised all consensual sex among adults, including homosexual sex.
Repealing Section 377 (2018):
In 2018, after decades of grassroots activism, the application of section 377 of the Indian Penal Code to private consensual sex between men was ruled unconstitutional by India's Supreme Court, effectively decriminalizing homosexual activity.
The Rafale Deal Controversy Case (2019):
On 14 December 2018 the Supreme Court upheld the Rafale deal, stating that no irregularities or corruption have been found. The Supreme Court delivered the final legal judgement on the controversy on 14 November 2019 and dismissed all the petitions seeking a review of its December 2018 judgement.
The Ayodhya Case (2019):
The Supreme Court granted the entire 2.77 acres of disputed land in Ayodhya to the deity Ram Lalla. The Supreme Court ordered the government of Central and Uttar Pradesh to allocate 5-acre alternative land to Muslims in a prominent location to build a mosque.
Comments
Post a Comment