Related Article/section/matter Case law

Schedule 9 – land reforms Shankari Prasad vs UOI 1951

First amendment act 1951 Sajjan singh vs SoRajasthan 1965
Article 13 Golaknath vs SoPunjab 1967
Basic structure Vaman Rao
Basic structure Keshavananda bharti
FR and DPSPs Minerva mills

Article 14 Sabarimala case

Article 12 R. D. Shetty’s case: This case enumerated the following five factors, which
would determine whether a body comes under the definition of State as
defined in Article 12 of the Constitution:
 Financial resources of the State, where State is the chief funding source
i.e. the entire share capital is held by the government.
 Deep and pervasive control of the State
 The functional character being Governmental in its essence, meaning
thereby that its functions have public importance or are of a
governmental character.
 A department of Government transferred to a corporation.
 Enjoys “monopoly status” which State conferred or is protected by it.

Article 19 – FOSE Maneka Gandhi vs UOI

Romesh Thappar vs State of Madras
People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs UOI
Anuradha bhasin case - right to trade over the internet
Article 21 Maneka Gandhi vs UOI

Article 21 A – Right to Education Unnikrishnan v SoAndhraPradesh : Right to education is a part of right to life
Mohini Jain Case : Private institutes charging Capitation Fee is against 21A
Governor SR Bommai - stop the blatant abuse of Article 356
BP Singhal and DC Wadhwa case for ordinances by Governor
Secularism S.R. Bommai case

Scope of Article 32 MC Mehta and UOI (1986) - rule of Absolute Liability or Rylands vs Fletcher to
be followed; issue of compensation; Environment Law
Scope and extent of Article 16(4), Indira Sawhney and UOI(1992)
reservation of jobs in favour of
backward classes
th
9 schedule I.R Coelho and State of Tamil Nadu 2007

PMLA Latest judgement Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs UOI 2022

Decriminalisation of Section 377 Navtej singh johar case 2018

IPC
Right to Privacy KS Puttaswamy 2017

Passive Euthanasia – Right to Life Aruna Shanbaug Case (2011)

Power of judicial review L Chandra Kumar Case (1997)- vested in the Supreme Court and High Courts
by Articles 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies) and 226 respectively is a
part of the basic structure of the Constitution
Capital punishment Bacchan Singh vs State of Punjab (1980)

Right to Internet Access Anuradha Bhasin case (2020):

Preamble of the Constitution Berubari Union case (1960)

Kesavananda Bharti Case 1973
LIC of India case (1995)
Decriminalising elections/ politics ADR case
Lily Thomas Case - MLA Disqualification; RoPA Sec 8(4)
S Subramaniam balaji Case - freebies case
PUCL case – NOTA
Vulnerable Section Olga tellis case - Pavement dewellers have right to life under A-21
Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal: SC has said - Sex workers
and their children should not be deprived of Right to life with dignity under
article 21
D K Basu vs State of West Bengal – custodial violence
Tribals Samatha and State of Andhra Pradesh (1997 - forest land, tribal land, and
government land in scheduled areas could not be leased to private
companies or non-tribal for industrial operations. Such activity is only
permissible to a government undertaking and tribal people.
Compiled by D
 Environment Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar: right to get pollution free water and air is
a fundamental right under A 21.
Samit Mehta v. Union of India: Banning the use of coal and directing
industries to use CNG. The Court reaffirmed the “Precautionary Principle” and
“Polluter Pays Principle” and also recognized Right to clean environment as a
fundamental right under Article 21
Health Murli Deora v UoI : Ban on public smoking
Apollo Hospital Case/ Parmanand Karta Case : Emergency Medical aid to
everyone
Gender Justice Joseph shine case – adultery unconstitutional – women not property
NALSA vs UOI case: recognising transgenders as the third gender
Shayra Bano case 2017: Outlawed triple talaq
Suman Surpur case 2018: daughters have equal share in property of father.
Vineeta Sharma Case 2020 : Coparcenary rights to women irrespective of
whether father is alive or dead in HUF
Vishakha guidelines – Sexual harassment at workplaces
Arun Kumar Agarwal vs National insurance company: The SC not only
acknowledge the contribution of the housewives as invaluable, but also
observed that it cannot be computed in terms of money.
Anti Defection Law Ravi S Naik vs Union of India 1994: Supreme Court in this case cleared that
the phrase “voluntary gives up membership of a political party” had wider
connotations and was not synonymous with resignation.
Speaker Keisham Megha chandra Singh vs The Speaker Manipur: Speaker should
dispose the case of defection within four weeks.
Kihoto hollohan case 1992: Sc held the validity of anti defection law and
speaker’s order subject to judicial review on limited grounds.
Keisham Meghachandra Singh VS Speaker (2020): disqualification petition
should be cleared by the Speaker within 4 months.
Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix vs Deputy Speaker case: SC said that the
speaker ought not to have disqualified the defectors when the motion for his
own removal was pending.
SC Test of proportionality 1. State action must have a legislative mandate
2. The action must show that the objective of its law is founded on
a legitimate governmental aim
3. It must be proportionate, i.e., such state action — both in its nature and
extent, must be necessary for a democratic society. Further, such action
must have no alternative and less intrusive measures available to achieve
the same objective

Trials and Custody
Protest/Right to protest
Husain Ara Khatu v State of Bihar : Right to fair and speedy trial
Prem Shankar Shukla Case : Right against Handcuffing
Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration : Right against solitary confinement
DK Basu v State of West Bengal : Right against custodial violence
TK Rangarajan vs govt of TN: Govt employees have no fundamental right to
resort to strike
Ramlila Maidan Incident vs UOI (2012): citizens have a fundamental right
to assembly and peaceful protest which cannot be taken away by an arbitrary
executive or legislative action.
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) vs UOI(2018): SC upheld the
fundamental right to assembly and peaceful protest but ordered it to be
regulated in such a way that they do not cause inconvenience to residents
Shaheen Bagh Judgement:
1. The court upheld the right to peaceful protest against a law but made it
clear that public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied and that too
indefinitely.
2. The right to protest in a public place should be balanced with the right of
the general public to move freely without hindrance.
3. Fundamental rights do not live in isolation. The right of the protester has to
be balanced with the right of the commuter and has to co-exist in mutual
respect.

*Not at all an exhaustive list, just bare minimum case laws one can quote in GS answers
Feel free to add over these notes

Compiled by D