Important Supreme Court Judgements

Prakhar Mentor Guided Evaluation Plan
important Supreme Court judgements

1. WOMEN RELATED ISSUES
2. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
3. CHILD RIGHTS
4. MINORITY ISSUES
5. TRIBAL ISSUES
6. OTHER SOCIAL ISSUES
a. LGBTQIA+ RIGHTS
b. MARITAL RAPE
c. LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS
d. RIGHT TO EDUCATION, HEALTH, FOOD, DIE, SHELTER, LIVELIHOOD, SPEEDY
TRIALS
7. CONTEMPORARY CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL ISSUES
a. SEX WORK AS A PROFESSION
b. UNIFORM CIVIL CODE
c. PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES
d. RIGHT TO PROTEST
e. RIGHT TO INTERNET ACCESS
f. COOPERATIVES
g. NATIONAL SYMBOLS, NATIONAL ANTHEM, NATIONAL FLAG
h. OFFICIAL LANGUAGE ISSUE
i. TRIBUNALS
j. ANTI-DEFECTION LAW
k. OFFICE OF PROFIT
l. SEDITION
m. HATE SPEECH
n. DEATH PENALTY
o. MOB LYNCHING
p. FORCED CONVERSION
q. PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS
8. PREAMBLE
9. UNION AND ITS TERRITORY
10. CITIZENSHIP
11. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
a. ARTICLE 14 - RIGHT TO EQUALITY
b. ARTICLE 15 - PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION
c. ARTICLE 16 - EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
Telegram YouTube Website

d. ARTICLE 17 - ABOLITION OF UNTOUCHABILITY
e. ARTICLE 18 - ABOLITION OF TITLES
f. ARTICLE 19 - FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION AND OTHERS
g. ARTICLE 20 - PROTECTION IN RESPECT OF CONVICTION FOR OFFENCES
h. ARTICLE 21 - PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY
i. ARTICLE 22 - PROTECTION AGAINST ARREST AND DETENTION IN CERTAIN
CASES
j. ARTICLE 23 - PROHIBITION OF TRAFFIC IN HUMAN BEINGS AND FORCED
LABOUR
k. ARTICLE 24 - PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN IN FACTORIES,
ETC.
l. ARTICLE 25-28
m. ARTICLE 29-30
n. ARTICLE 32 - REMEDIES FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
12. DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY
13. FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES
14. AMENDMENT OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
15. BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION
16. FEDERAL SYSTEM, CENTRE-STATE RELATIONS & INTER-STATE RELATIONS
17. EMERGENCY PROVISIONS OF CONSTITUTION
18. PRESIDENT
19. COUNCIL OF MINISTERS
20. PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES
21. JUDICIAL REVIEW
22. JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
23. GOVERNOR
24. PANCHAYATI RAJ AND MUNICIPALITIES
25. ELECTION COMMISSION AND ELECTIONS
26. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
27. COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL
28. CENTRAL AND STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
29. CVC AND CBI
30. LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTAS
31. CIVIL SERVICES REFORMS, CORRUPTION, POLITICAL NEXUS
32. INTERNAL SECURITY

WOMEN RELATED ISSUES
CASE NAME SIGNIFICANCE OF VERDICT
1 VISHAKA CASE (1997) LAID DOWN GUIDELINES AGAINST SEXUAL HARASSMENT AT THE
WORKPLACE, KNOWN AS THE VISHAKA GUIDELINES, UNTIL THE
ENACTMENT OF THE POSH ACT.
2 SHAKTI VAHINI CASE THE SUPREME COURT CONDEMNED HONOUR KILLINGS AND
(2018) PROHIBITED ANY INTERFERENCE IN THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN
TWO CONSENTING ADULTS, ENSURING PROTECTION OF
INDIVIDUAL CHOICE.
3 SABARIMALA TEMPLE CASE LIFTED THE BAN ON WOMEN OF MENSTRUATING AGE ENTERING
(2018) THE SABARIMALA TEMPLE, AFFIRMING WOMEN'S RIGHT TO
EQUALITY IN RELIGIOUS PRACTICES.
4 SHAH BANO CASE (1985) LANDMARK JUDGMENT GRANTING A MUSLIM WOMAN ALIMONY
POST-DIVORCE, LEADING TO A DEBATE ON UNIFORM CIVIL
CODE AND PERSONAL LAWS.
5 SHAYARA BANO CASE THE SUPREME COURT DECLARED THE PRACTICE OF INSTANT
(2017) TRIPLE TALAQ (TALAQ-E-BIDDAT) UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
STRENGTHENING THE RIGHTS OF MUSLIM WOMEN.
6 LATA SINGH CASE (2006) THE COURT RULED AGAINST CASTE-BASED HARASSMENT IN
CASES OF INTER-CASTE MARRIAGES, SUPPORTING THE
FREEDOM OF WOMEN TO MARRY A PERSON OF THEIR CHOICE.
7 JOSEPH SHINE CASE DECRIMINALIZED ADULTERY BY STRIKING DOWN SECTION 497

(2018) OF THE IPC, HOLDING IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
DISCRIMINATORY AGAINST WOMEN.
8 BABITA PUNIYA CASE THE SUPREME COURT ALLOWED PERMANENT COMMISSION FOR
(2020) WOMEN IN THE INDIAN ARMY, ENHANCING GENDER EQUALITY
IN ARMED FORCES.
9 VINEETA SHARMA V. CLARIFIED THE RIGHTS OF DAUGHTERS TO ANCESTRAL

RAKESH SHARMA CASE PROPERTY, ASSERTING THAT DAUGHTERS HAVE COPARCENARY
(2020) RIGHTS BY BIRTH IN A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY.

10 ROXANN SHARMA V. ARUN THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT MOTHERS HAVE EQUAL
SHARMA CASE (2015) RIGHTS AS FATHERS IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF A CHILD,
ENSURING GENDER EQUALITY IN CHILD CUSTODY MATTERS.
11 LAXMI CASE (2014) ADDRESSED ACID ATTACKS ON WOMEN, LEADING TO

ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION MEASURES
FOR ACID ATTACK SURVIVORS.
12 SUHAS KATTI CASE (2004) ONE OF THE FIRST CASES INVOLVING CONVICTION FOR
CYBERSTALKING AND HARASSMENT OF A WOMAN ONLINE,
SETTING A PRECEDENT IN CYBER LAW RELATING TO WOMEN'S
SAFETY.
13 CEHAT CASE (2003) FOCUSED ON THE PROHIBITION OF SEX-SELECTIVE ABORTIONS

AND MISUSE OF PRENATAL DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES,
REINFORCING LEGAL PROTECTIONS AGAINST FEMALE
FOETICIDE.
14 MEDICAL TERMINATION OF AFFIRMED A WOMAN'S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS AND AUTONOMY

PREGNANCY (MTP) ACT UNDER THE MTP ACT.
CASE
15 INDEPENDENT THOUGHT CRIMINALIZED SEX WITH A MINOR WIFE, MARKING A

CASE (2017) SIGNIFICANT STEP TOWARDS PROTECTING MINOR GIRLS FROM
MARITAL RAPE AND SEXUAL EXPLOITATION.
16 AIR INDIA V. NARGESH STRUCK DOWN THE PRACTICE OF TERMINATING THE SERVICES
MEERZA CASE (1981) OF AIR HOSTESSES ON THE GROUNDS OF MARRIAGE OR
PREGNANCY AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND DISCRIMINATORY.
17 DELHI DOMESTIC RECOGNIZED THE RIGHTS OF DOMESTIC WORKERS AND LAID

WORKING WOMEN'S DOWN GUIDELINES FOR COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION
FORUM CASE (1995) OF RAPE SURVIVORS.
18 PRERANA CASE (2013) DEALT WITH THE RIGHTS AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN IN
RED-LIGHT AREAS, FOCUSING ON THE NEEDS OF GIRLS
TRAPPED IN PROSTITUTION RACKETS.
19 PEOPLE'S UNION FOR HIGHLIGHTED THE EXPLOITATION OF WOMEN CONSTRUCTION

DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS V. WORKERS, LEADING TO BETTER ENFORCEMENT OF LABOUR
UNION OF INDIA (1982) LAWS FOR THEIR PROTECTION.

22 KHURANA V. UNION OF THE CASE DEALT WITH MATERNITY BENEFITS AND REINFORCED
INDIA CASE (2014) THE RIGHTS OF WORKING WOMEN TO MATERNITY LEAVE AND
BENEFITS.
23 INDRA SARMA V. VKV RECOGNIZED THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN IN LIVE-IN

SARMA CASE (2013) RELATIONSHIPS UNDER THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, EXTENDING PROTECTION TO NON-
TRADITIONAL RELATIONSHIPS.
24 HADIYA CASE (2018) THE SUPREME COURT EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF

INDIVIDUAL AUTONOMY AND THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE ONE'S
RELIGION AND PARTNER, PARTICULARLY RELEVANT FOR
WOMEN'S RIGHTS.
25 DEVIKA BISWAS CASE ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF MASS STERILIZATION CAMPS AND
(2016) VIOLATION OF WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS, EMPHASIZING
THE NEED FOR HEALTH CARE ACCOUNTABILITY AND CONSENT.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
1 M.C. MEHTA (1987) - THE THIS LANDMARK CASE LED TO THE CLOSURE OF SEVERAL
GANGA POLLUTION CASE INDUSTRIES POLLUTING THE GANGES, SETTING A
PRECEDENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISM AND JUDICIAL
INTERVENTION IN INDIA.
2 VELLORE CITIZENS THE SUPREME COURT ADOPTED THE 'PRECAUTIONARY

WELFARE FORUM CASE PRINCIPLE' AND 'SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT' AS PART OF
(1996) THE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW IN INDIA, HIGHLIGHTING THE
NEED FOR ECOLOGICAL CONSERVATION.
3 M.C. MEHTA (1988) - RECOGNIZED THE PRINCIPLE OF 'ABSOLUTE LIABILITY' FOR

SHRIRAM GAS LEAK CASE HARM CAUSED BY HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIES, REGARDLESS
OF THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF NEGLIGENCE.
4 M.C. MEHTA (2004) - TAJ THE SUPREME COURT'S ORDERS LED TO THE RELOCATION
TRAPEZIUM CASE OF INDUSTRIES POLLUTING THE AIR NEAR THE TAJ MAHAL,
DEMONSTRATING THE IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING
CULTURAL HERITAGE FROM ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION.
5 ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD UPHELD THE RIGHTS OF ANIMALS AGAINST CRUELTY AND
OF INDIA CASE (2014) RECOGNIZED THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS OF ANIMAL
WELFARE LAWS, CHANGING THE COURSE OF ANIMAL RIGHTS
IN INDIA.
6 NARMADA BACHAO ADDRESSED THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND REHABILITATION

ANDOLAN CASE (2000) CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
SARDAR SAROVAR DAM ON THE NARMADA RIVER,
HIGHLIGHTING THE CONFLICT BETWEEN DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION.
7 T.N. GODAVARMAN EXPANDED THE DEFINITION OF 'FOREST' UNDER THE FOREST

THIRUMULKPAD CASE CONSERVATION ACT, LEADING TO INCREASED PROTECTION
(1997) OF FORESTS AND WILDLIFE IN INDIA.
8 M.C. MEHTA (1992) - A SIGNIFICANT CASE WHERE THE SUPREME COURT APPLIED
OLEUM GAS LEAK CASE THE 'ABSOLUTE LIABILITY' PRINCIPLE FOR HAZARDOUS
INDUSTRIES, STRENGTHENING ENVIRONMENTAL
JURISPRUDENCE.

9 SAMATHA CASE (1997) THE COURT HELD THAT TRIBAL LANDS IN SCHEDULED AREAS
CANNOT BE LEASED TO NON-TRIBALS OR PRIVATE
COMPANIES FOR MINING, SAFEGUARDING THE RIGHTS OF
TRIBAL COMMUNITIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT.
10 M.C. MEHTA V. KAMAL NATH IN THIS CASE, THE SUPREME COURT APPLIED THE 'PUBLIC
CASE (1997) TRUST DOCTRINE', AFFIRMING THAT CERTAIN RESOURCES
LIKE AIR, SEA, WATERS, AND FORESTS HAVE SUCH A GREAT
IMPORTANCE TO THE PEOPLE THAT IT WOULD BE WHOLLY
UNJUSTIFIED TO MAKE THEM A SUBJECT OF PRIVATE
OWNERSHIP.
11 RESEARCH FOUNDATION THE SUPREME COURT BANNED THE IMPORT OF HAZARDOUS

FOR SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY WASTE TO INDIA, EMPHASIZING THE NEED FOR PROPER
& NATURAL RESOURCE WASTE MANAGEMENT TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT.
POLICY CASE (2005)
12 CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT THE CASE LED TO THE CREATION OF A NATIONAL BUFFER
LAW CASE (2013) ZONE POLICY AROUND PROTECTED AREAS AND WILDLIFE
SANCTUARIES.
13 GOA FOUNDATION CASE THE SUPREME COURT SUSPENDED ALL MINING OPERATIONS
(2014) IN GOA DUE TO ILLEGALITIES IN THE PROCESS,
EMPHASIZING THE NEED FOR REGULATORY COMPLIANCE IN
ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS.
14 M.C. MEHTA (2002) - DELHI THE COURT ORDERED THE CONVERSION OF ALL PUBLIC
POLLUTION CASE TRANSPORT VEHICLES IN DELHI TO CNG, SIGNIFICANTLY
REDUCING AIR POLLUTION IN THE CITY.
15 M.C. MEHTA (1996) - NOISE THE SUPREME COURT ISSUED GUIDELINES TO CONTROL
POLLUTION CASE NOISE POLLUTION, RECOGNIZING THE RIGHT TO A NOISE-
FREE ENVIRONMENT AS PART OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE UNDER
ARTICLE 21.
16 ARJUN GOPAL CASE (2018) THE SUPREME COURT RESTRICTED THE USE OF FIREWORKS
AND IMPOSED TIMING RESTRICTIONS TO COMBAT AIR
POLLUTION, PARTICULARLY DURING THE DIWALI FESTIVAL.
17 M.C. MEHTA (2006) - THE COURT ISSUED DIRECTIONS TO REGULATE THE USE OF
FIRECRACKER CASE FIRECRACKERS, CONSIDERING THEIR IMPACT ON AIR
QUALITY AND NOISE POLLUTION.

18 INDIAN COUNCIL FOR THE COURT HELD INDUSTRIES IN RAJASTHAN LIABLE FOR
ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION AND DIRECTED THEM TO
CASE (1996) COMPENSATE THE AFFECTED PEOPLE, APPLYING THE
'POLLUTER PAYS' PRINCIPLE.
19 RURAL LITIGATION AND THIS CASE, DEALING WITH LIMESTONE QUARRYING IN THE
ENTITLEMENT KENDRA DOON VALLEY, BECAME A LANDMARK IN ENVIRONMENTAL
CASE (1985) LITIGATION, LEADING TO THE CLOSURE OF SEVERAL
QUARRIES TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT.
20 SHRIMP CULTURE CASE ADDRESSED THE IMPACT OF SHRIMP FARMING ON THE

ENVIRONMENT, ASSERTING THAT THE RIGHT TO A HEALTHY
ENVIRONMENT IS PART OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE UNDER
ARTICLE 21.
21 TARUN BHARAT SANGH, THE SUPREME COURT ORDERED THE CLOSURE OF ILLEGAL
ALWAR CASE (1992) MINING ACTIVITIES IN THE SARISKA TIGER RESERVE,
EMPHASIZING WILDLIFE CONSERVATION.

CHILD RIGHTS
1 M.C. MEHTA CASE A LANDMARK CASE WHERE THE SUPREME COURT ISSUED
(1996) DIRECTIONS TO ERADICATE CHILD LABOUR, ESPECIALLY IN
HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIES, AND PROVIDED GUIDELINES FOR
THEIR EDUCATION AND REHABILITATION.
2 GAURAV JAIN CASE ADDRESSED THE PLIGHT OF CHILDREN OF SEX WORKERS, RULING
(1997) THAT THESE CHILDREN SHOULD BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITIES FOR
EDUCATION AND GROWTH WITHOUT STIGMA.
3 UNNIKRISHNAN JP EXPANDED THE SCOPE OF THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION, DECLARING

CASE (1993) THAT EVERY CHILD HAS THE RIGHT TO BASIC EDUCATION UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION.
4 SAHNGOO RAM ARYA THIS JUDGMENT RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT OF CHILDREN TO

CASE (2002) MAINTENANCE IN CASES OF PARENTS WITH MORE THAN ONE
WIFE, UNDERLINING THE CHILD'S WELFARE AS THE PARAMOUNT
CONSIDERATION.
5 SHEELA BARSE CASE DEALT WITH THE RIGHTS OF JUVENILE DETAINEES, LEADING TO
(1986) GUIDELINES FOR THEIR PROTECTION AGAINST ABUSE AND
EXPLOITATION.
6 BACHPAN BACHAO THE SUPREME COURT ISSUED DIRECTIONS FOR THE PREVENTION
ANDOLAN CASE OF CHILD TRAFFICKING AND CHILD LABOUR, EMPHASIZING THE
(2011) NEED FOR THEIR PROPER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION.
7 PUCL V. STATE OF THE CASE WHERE THE SUPREME COURT ORDERED STATES TO
TAMIL NADU CASE IMPLEMENT THE MID-DAY MEAL SCHEME IN SCHOOLS,
(2001) SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTING CHILD NUTRITION AND EDUCATION.
8 LAXMIKANT PANDEY THE SUPREME COURT PROVIDED COMPREHENSIVE GUIDELINES

CASE (1986) FOR INTER-COUNTRY ADOPTIONS, WITH A FOCUS ON THE
WELFARE OF THE CHILD.
9 BANDHUA MUKTI THE SUPREME COURT'S DIRECTIVES FOR THE RELEASE AND
MORCHA CASE (1984) REHABILITATION OF BONDED LABOURERS INCLUDED PROVISIONS
FOR CHILD LABOURERS, EMPHASIZING THEIR RIGHT TO
EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT.

10 SUNITHA KRISHNAN THE TELANGANA HIGH COURT TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE SEXUAL
CASE (2016) EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES, LEADING TO
MEASURES FOR THEIR PROTECTION AND CARE.
MINORITY ISSUES
1 T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITY
CASE (2002) EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS TO ESTABLISH AND ADMINISTER
INSTITUTIONS, A LANDMARK JUDGMENT FOR MINORITY RIGHTS IN
THE FIELD OF EDUCATION.
2 ST. XAVIER'S COLLEGE AFFIRMED THE RIGHT OF MINORITY INSTITUTIONS TO ADMINISTER

CASE (1974) AND MANAGE THEIR INSTITUTIONS, UNDERLINING THE AUTONOMY
OF MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.
3 JOHN VALLAMATTOM THE SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN A SECTION OF THE INDIAN
CASE (2003) SUCCESSION ACT AS DISCRIMINATORY AGAINST CHRISTIANS,
UPHOLDING THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION ON THE
BASIS OF RELIGION.
4 S.P. MITTAL CASE THIS CASE INVOLVED THE AUROVILLE COMMUNITY AND DEALT
(1983) WITH THE ISSUE OF GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER AN
INSTITUTION BASED ON SPIRITUAL AND CULTURAL PURSUITS,
TOUCHING UPON MINORITY COMMUNITY RIGHTS.
5 BIJOE EMMANUEL CASE UPHELD THE RIGHT OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES TO REFRAIN FROM
(1986) SINGING THE NATIONAL ANTHEM DUE TO RELIGIOUS

CONVICTIONS, AFFIRMING THE RIGHTS OF RELIGIOUS
MINORITIES.
6 ARUNA ROY CASE CHALLENGED THE INTRODUCTION OF RELIGIOUS CONTENT IN THE

(2002) NATIONAL CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK, HIGHLIGHTING THE ISSUE
OF SECULARISM IN EDUCATION.
7 PRAMATI EDUCATIONAL HELD THAT MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ARE EXEMPT

& CULTURAL TRUST FROM THE AMBIT OF THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION ACT, EMPHASIZING
CASE (2014) THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES UNDER ARTICLE 30.
8 MOHD. HANIF THE SUPREME COURT EXAMINED THE VALIDITY OF STATE LAWS
QUARESHI CASE (1958) BANNING COW SLAUGHTER, BALANCING RELIGIOUS MINORITY
RIGHTS WITH MAJORITY SENTIMENTS.
9 ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF DEALT WITH THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR ADMISSION AND
EDUCATION CASE FEE STRUCTURE IN MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.
(2003)
10 FAZAL RAB CHOUDHARY THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE ALIGARH MUSLIM
CASE (1982) UNIVERSITY IS NOT A MINORITY INSTITUTION, IMPACTING THE
DISCOURSE ON MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN INDIA.

TRIBAL ISSUES
1 SAMATHA CASE (1997) THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT TRIBAL LAND CANNOT BE LEASED
TO NON-TRIBALS OR PRIVATE COMPANIES FOR MINING,
REINFORCING THE PROTECTION OF TRIBAL LANDS.
2 NIYAMGIRI VEDANTA THE SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZED THE RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL
CASE (2013) RIGHTS OF THE DONGRIA KONDH TRIBALS IN ODISHA,
PROTECTING THE NIYAMGIRI HILLS FROM BAUXITE MINING.
3 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIS CASE EXPANDED THE DEFINITION OF 'FOREST', IMPACTING

THIRUMULKPAD CASE THE RIGHTS OF FOREST-DWELLING TRIBES UNDER THE FOREST
(1997) CONSERVATION ACT.
4 CHEBROLU LEELA THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE A.P. REGULATION 1 OF 1959,
PRASAD RAO CASE WHICH PROVIDES FOR 100% RESERVATION FOR SCHEDULED
(2020) TRIBES IN TEACHER APPOINTMENTS IN SCHEDULED AREAS.
5 NARMADA BACHAO ADDRESSED THE DISPLACEMENT OF TRIBAL COMMUNITIES DUE TO

ANDOLAN CASE (2011) THE SARDAR SAROVAR DAM PROJECT, FOCUSING ON
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ISSUES.
6 CENTRE FOR THE SUPREME COURT ISSUED DIRECTIVES FOR THE CREATION OF
ENVIRONMENT LAW BUFFER ZONES AROUND TIGER RESERVES, IMPACTING TRIBAL
CASE (2013) COMMUNITIES LIVING IN THESE AREAS.
7 RURAL LITIGATION AND KNOWN AS THE DEHRADUN VALLEY LITIGATION CASE, IT

ENTITLEMENT KENDRA ADDRESSED ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION AFFECTING THE
CASE (1989) LIVELIHOODS OF TRIBAL COMMUNITIES.
8 ASHOK DEY CASE THE SUPREME COURT DEALT WITH THE RIGHTS OF TRIBAL
(2007) COMMUNITIES IN THE DARJEELING HILL AREA, ADDRESSING
ISSUES OF POLITICAL REPRESENTATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE
AUTONOMY.
9 GONDVANA GANTANTRA THE PETITION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT SOUGHT GREATER
PARTY CASE (2012) POLITICAL REPRESENTATION FOR TRIBAL COMMUNITIES,
UNDERLINING THE NEED FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION IN
DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE.

10 ANKUR LAHA CASE THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT DECISION ON THE ISSUE OF TRIBAL
(2019) RIGHTS IN THE CONTEXT OF FOREST LAND ACQUISITION AND
THEIR RESETTLEMENT.
11 WILDLIFE FIRST CASE THE SUPREME COURT ORDERED THE EVICTION OF MILLIONS OF
(2019) TRIBAL AND OTHER FOREST-DWELLING FAMILIES ACROSS INDIA, A
DECISION THAT WAS LATER STAYED, REFLECTING THE ONGOING
CONFLICT BETWEEN CONSERVATION POLICIES AND TRIBAL
RIGHTS.
LGBTQIA+ RIGHTS
1 SURESH KUMAR KOUSHAL THIS SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT, WHICH WAS LATER
V. NAZ FOUNDATION CASE OVERTURNED, INITIALLY UPHELD SECTION 377, SHOWING THE
(2013) EVOLVING JUDICIAL APPROACH TOWARDS LGBTQIA+ RIGHTS.
2 NATIONAL LEGAL RECOGNIZED THE RIGHTS OF TRANSGENDER PEOPLE, GRANTING

SERVICES AUTHORITY THEM THE STATUS OF A 'THIRD GENDER' AND AFFIRMING THEIR
CASE (2014) FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
3 NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR DECRIMINALIZED HOMOSEXUALITY BY STRIKING DOWN SECTION

CASE (2018) 377 OF THE IPC, A LANDMARK JUDGMENT FOR THE LGBTQIA+
COMMUNITY'S RIGHTS AND DIGNITY.

MARITAL RAPE
1 HARVINDER KAUR V. THE DELHI HIGH COURT STATED THAT THE INTRODUCTION OF
HARMANDER SINGH CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN THE HOME IS LIKE INTRODUCING A
CHOUDHRY CASE (1984) BULL IN A CHINA SHOP AND EMPHASIZED THAT MARITAL RAPE
IS NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENSE IN INDIA.
2 MALIMATH COMMITTEE THOUGH NOT A COURT CASE, THE MALIMATH COMMITTEE'S

REPORT ON REFORMS OF RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDED THE NEED TO MAKE MARITAL
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM RAPE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, A SIGNIFICANT SUGGESTION IN THE
(2003) CONTEXT OF GENDER JUSTICE.
3 INDEPENDENT THOUGHT CRIMINALIZED SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A MINOR WIFE,

CASE (2017) INDIRECTLY ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF MARITAL RAPE AND THE
PROTECTION OF MINORS IN MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS.
4 AJAY KUMAR CASE (2018) THE HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT GRANTED DIVORCE ON
THE GROUNDS OF CRUELTY, CONSIDERING THE WIFE’S
ALLEGATION OF FORCED SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, WHICH
REFLECTS A GROWING JUDICIAL AWARENESS OF MARITAL RAPE.
5 RIT FOUNDATION CASE A CASE IN THE DELHI HIGH COURT CHALLENGING THE
(2019) EXCEPTION OF MARITAL RAPE UNDER IPC SECTION 375. WHILE
THE FINAL JUDGMENT IS PENDING, THIS CASE HAS REIGNITED
THE DEBATE ON MARITAL RAPE IN INDIA.
LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS
1 SMT. SARETHA V. T. ONE OF THE EARLY CASES WHERE THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH
VENKATA SUBBAIAH CASE COURT RECOGNIZED THE CONCEPT OF A LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP
(1983) UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
2 PAYAL KATARA CASE THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT OF A
(2001) WOMAN TO LIVE WITH HER PARTNER IN A LIVE-IN
RELATIONSHIP, IRRESPECTIVE OF HER LEGAL MARITAL STATUS.
3 BHARATA MATHA CASE THE SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZED THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF
(2010) WOMEN IN LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS, OFFERING THEM

PROTECTION SIMILAR TO MARRIAGE UNDER CERTAIN
CONDITIONS.
4 ALOK KUMAR CASE (2010) THE DELHI HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT LIVE-IN
RELATIONSHIPS ARE A WALK-IN AND WALK-OUT RELATIONSHIP
WITH NO STRINGS ATTACHED AND DO NOT AMOUNT TO A
MARITAL RELATIONSHIP.
5 MADAN MOHAN SINGH THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RULED THAT A LIVE-IN
CASE (2010) RELATIONSHIP WAS PERMISSIBLE ONLY BETWEEN UNMARRIED
MAJOR PERSONS OF HETEROGENEOUS SEX.
6 REVANASIDDAPPA V. RECOGNIZED THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN BORN OUT OF LIVE-IN

MALLIKARJUN CASE (2011) RELATIONSHIPS, AFFIRMING THEIR LEGITIMACY AND
INHERITANCE RIGHTS.
7 GAURAV SURESHBHAI THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT'S OBSERVATION ON LIVE-IN

VYAS CASE (2019) RELATIONSHIPS POINTED OUT THAT SUCH RELATIONSHIPS ARE
NEITHER A CRIME NOR A SIN, INDICATING CHANGING SOCIETAL
ATTITUDES.

RIGHT TO EDUCATION, HEALTH, FOOD, DIE,
SHELTER, LIVELIHOOD, SPEEDY TRIALS
1 FRANCIS CORALIE DEFINED THE SCOPE OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE, INCLUDING THE RIGHT
MULLIN CASE (1981) TO LIVE WITH DIGNITY, WHICH ENCOMPASSES A VARIETY OF
SOCIAL CONDITIONS.
2 MOHINI JAIN CASE DEALT WITH THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION, STATING THAT CAPITATION
(1992) FEES VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION UNDER ARTICLE 14 AND
21 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
3 UNNIKRISHNAN JP DECLARED THAT THE RIGHT TO BASIC EDUCATION IS A

CASE (1993) FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
4 RAJBALA CASE (2015) THIS JUDGMENT EXAMINED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF

EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR CONTESTING LOCAL BODY
ELECTIONS, IMPACTING THE POLITICAL RIGHTS OF THE LESS
EDUCATED SECTIONS OF SOCIETY.
5 CONSUMER EDUCATION UPHELD THE RIGHT TO HEALTH AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT,

& RESEARCH CENTRE PARTICULARLY SIGNIFICANT FOR THE POOR AND VULNERABLE WHO
CASE (1995) LACK ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE.
6 PASCHIM BANGA KHET HELD THAT THE LACK OF MEDICAL FACILITIES IN GOVERNMENT
MAZDOOR SAMITY HOSPITALS VIOLATES THE RIGHT TO HEALTH UNDER ARTICLE 21.
CASE (1996)
7 RAM LUBHAYA BAGGA HELD THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION
CASE (1998) TO PROVIDE HEALTH FACILITIES TO CITIZENS, IMPACTING PUBLIC
HEALTH POLICY.
8 P. RATHINAM CASE HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO LIFE UNDER ARTICLE 21 INCLUDES THE
(1994) RIGHT TO DIE, AND CONSEQUENTLY, SECTION 309 (ATTEMPT TO
SUICIDE) OF THE IPC WAS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THIS
STANCE WAS LATER OVERTURNED BY GIAN KAUR V. STATE OF
PUNJAB.
9 GIAN KAUR CASE OVERTURNED THE P. RATHINAM VERDICT, HOLDING THAT THE
(1996) RIGHT TO LIFE UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION DOES

NOT INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO DIE. THIS JUDGMENT UPHELD THE
VALIDITY OF SECTION 309 (ATTEMPT TO SUICIDE) OF THE IPC.
10 ARUNA SHANBAUG DISCUSSED THE LEGALITY OF PASSIVE EUTHANASIA, RAISING

CASE (2011) ETHICAL, HEALTH, AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE END-OF-
LIFE CARE.
11 ASHWANI KUMAR CASE THIS CASE WAS ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF THE ELDERLY, CONCERNING
(2016) STATE POLICIES ON HEALTH CARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY FOR
SENIOR CITIZENS.
12 COMMON CAUSE V. ADDRESSED THE RIGHT TO DIE WITH DIGNITY, BRINGING IN

UNION OF INDIA CASE CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT PALLIATIVE CARE AND END-OF-LIFE
(2018) DECISIONS.
13 PUCL V. UNION OF THE SUPREME COURT’S ORDERS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF

INDIA (2001) - RIGHT VARIOUS FOOD SCHEMES REINFORCED THE RIGHT TO FOOD AS AN
TO FOOD CASE INTEGRAL PART OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE.
14 SHANTISTAR BUILDERS RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT TO SHELTER AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

CASE (1990) UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, LINKED TO THE RIGHT TO LIFE.
15 NAWAB KHAN GULAB UPHELD THE RIGHTS OF PAVEMENT DWELLERS, ACKNOWLEDGING

KHAN CASE (1997) THE STATE'S DUTY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE REHABILITATION
BEFORE EVICTION.
16 INDIAN BANKS’ THE SUPREME COURT’S DIRECTIVES ON LOAN WAIVER SCHEMES

ASSOCIATION CASE HIGHLIGHTED THE NEED FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT MECHANISMS
(2014) FOR FARMERS, A VULNERABLE SECTION IN RURAL INDIA.
17 OLGA TELLIS CASE UPHELD THE RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD, WHICH INCLUDES THE RIGHT
(1985) TO ADEQUATE HOUSING AND THE IMPORTANCE OF REHABILITATION
FOR THOSE EVICTED.
18 BANDHUA MUKTI ADDRESSED FORCED LABOUR AND INHUMANE WORKING

MORCHA CASE (1984) CONDITIONS, IMPACTING LABOUR RIGHTS AND HEALTH
CONDITIONS OF WORKERS.
19 DELHI TRANSPORT DEALT WITH THE RIGHTS OF WORKERS AGAINST ARBITRARY

CORPORATION CASE DISMISSAL, PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF LABOURERS AND
(1991) EMPLOYEES.

20 HUSSAINARA KHATOON ADDRESSED THE PLIGHT OF UNDERTRIAL PRISONERS, MANY OF
V. STATE OF BIHAR WHOM ARE FROM MARGINALIZED SECTIONS, LANGUISHING IN
(1979) JAILS WITHOUT SPEEDY TRIALS.
21 SUNIL BATRA CASE A LANDMARK CASE ON PRISONERS' RIGHTS, IMPACTING THE

(1978) HEALTH AND HUMAN CONDITIONS IN PRISONS.
22 PARAMANAND KATARA EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE AND

CASE (1989) THE DUTY OF HOSPITALS TO PROVIDE TIMELY TREATMENT,
IMPACTING PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY.
23 NEELABATI BEHARA THIS CASE FOCUSED ON CUSTODIAL VIOLENCE AND DEATHS,

CASE (1993) HIGHLIGHTING THE STATE'S ACCOUNTABILITY TOWARDS
PROTECTING INDIVIDUALS, ESPECIALLY THOSE FROM VULNERABLE
GROUPS.
24 R.D. UPADHYAY CASE THE SUPREME COURT ISSUED GUIDELINES TO IMPROVE THE LIVING
(2006) CONDITIONS OF CHILDREN OF WOMEN INMATES IN PRISONS,
ADDRESSING THE RIGHTS OF A VULNERABLE SECTION WITHIN THE
PRISON SYSTEM.

SEX WORK AS A PROFESSION
1 BUDHADEV THE SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZED THE RIGHTS OF SEX WORKERS AND
KARMASKAR CASE STATED THAT SEX WORKERS ARE ENTITLED TO DIGNITY AND EQUAL
(2011) PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. THE COURT DIRECTED THE CENTRE AND
STATE GOVERNMENTS TO PREPARE SCHEMES FOR GIVING
TECHNICAL/VOCATIONAL TRAINING TO SEX WORKERS AND SEXUALLY
ABUSED WOMEN.
2 KAJAL MUKESH BOMBAY HIGH COURT SAID “PROSTITUTION IS NOT AN OFFENCE; A

SINGH CASE WOMAN HAS A RIGHT TO CHOOSE HER VOCATION”.
(2021)
3 VISHAL JEET FOCUSED ON THE ISSUE OF CHILD PROSTITUTION AND THE EXPLOITATION
CASE (1990) OF SEX WORKERS. THE COURT ISSUED DIRECTIONS FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES
AT THE STATE LEVEL.
4 MADHUKAR THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT A SEX WORKER IS ALSO ENTITLED TO
NARAYAN PRIVACY AND DIGNITY UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION. THIS
MARDIKAR CASE JUDGMENT WAS IMPORTANT IN ACKNOWLEDGING THE RIGHTS OF SEX
(1991) WORKERS.
5 MANOJ SHAW CALCUTTA HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT SEX WORKERS SHOULD BE
CASE (2003) TREATED AS VICTIMS OF CRIME RATHER THAN THE ACCUSED.
6 GAURAV JAIN ACKNOWLEDGED THE PLIGHT OF CHILDREN BORN TO SEX WORKERS AND
CASE (1997) STRESSED ON THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND REHABILITATION. WHILE
IT DID NOT EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZE SEX WORK AS A PROFESSION, IT
ADDRESSED ISSUES DIRECTLY AFFECTING THE SEX WORKER COMMUNITY.
UNIFORM CIVIL CODE (UCC)

1 SHAH BANO BEGUM THIS CASE IS ONE OF THE MOST FAMOUS REGARDING PERSONAL
CASE (1985) LAW IN INDIA. THE SUPREME COURT RULED IN FAVOUR OF
PROVIDING MAINTENANCE TO A DIVORCED MUSLIM WOMAN, WHICH
LED TO DISCUSSIONS ON THE UNIFORM CIVIL CODE AS A MEANS TO
PROVIDE JUSTICE IRRESPECTIVE OF RELIGION.

2 JORDAN DIENGDEH IN THIS CASE, THE SUPREME COURT HIGHLIGHTED THE NEED FOR A
VS. S.S. CHOPRA UNIFORM CIVIL CODE, PARTICULARLY IN THE CONTEXT OF DIVORCE
CASE (1985) AMONG CHRISTIAN COUPLES, UNDERSCORING THE PROBLEMS DUE
TO THE DIVERSITY OF PERSONAL LAWS.
3 SARLA MUDGAL CASE THIS CASE DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF BIGAMY UNDER HINDU
(1995) MARRIAGE LAW. THE COURT OBSERVED THE NEED FOR A UNIFORM
CIVIL CODE, NOTING THE PROBLEMS CAUSED BY THE EXISTENCE OF
MULTIPLE PERSONAL LAWS IN THE COUNTRY.
4 AHMEDABAD WOMEN THE PETITIONERS CHALLENGED THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF

ACTION GROUP CERTAIN PRACTICES UNDER MUSLIM PERSONAL LAW. THE COURT'S
(AWAG) CASE (1997) OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE NEED FOR UNIFORM LAWS IN
MATTERS OF GENDER JUSTICE WERE SEEN IN LINE WITH UCC
PRINCIPLES.
5 LILY THOMAS CASE THE COURT DEALT WITH THE VALIDITY OF CONVERSION TO ISLAM
(2000) FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRACTICING POLYGAMY. THE JUDGMENT
BROUGHT TO LIGHT THE NEED FOR A COMMON CIVIL CODE TO
PREVENT SUCH MISUSE OF RELIGIOUS LAWS.
6 DANIEL LATIFI CASE THIS CASE INTERPRETED THE MUSLIM WOMEN (PROTECTION OF
(2001) RIGHTS ON DIVORCE) ACT, 1986. WHILE NOT DIRECTLY RULING ON
UCC, THE JUDGMENT EMPHASIZED THE NEED FOR A UNIFORM
APPROACH IN LAWS GOVERNING MARRIAGE AND MAINTENANCE
ACROSS RELIGIONS.
7 JAVED VS. STATE OF THIS CASE, INVOLVING THE DISQUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS OF A

HARYANA CASE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY WITH MORE THAN TWO CHILDREN, TOUCHED
(2003) UPON THE UNIFORMITY OF CIVIL OBLIGATIONS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES, ALIGNING WITH THE PRINCIPLES THAT WOULD
UNDERLIE A UCC.
8 JOHN VALLAMATTOM THE PETITIONER CHALLENGED THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF

CASE (2003) SECTION 118 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, WHICH
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST CHRISTIANS IN MATTERS OF WILLS. THE
SUPREME COURT CALLED FOR THE ADOPTION OF A UNIFORM CIVIL
CODE, EMPHASIZING EQUALITY AMONG ALL CITIZENS.
9 SHAYARA BANO CASE KNOWN FOR THE TRIPLE TALAQ VERDICT, THIS CASE LED TO THE
(2017) ABOLISHMENT OF INSTANT TRIPLE TALAQ IN ISLAM. THE JUDGMENT
WAS SEEN AS A SIGNIFICANT STEP TOWARDS GENDER JUSTICE AND
EQUALITY, UNDERLYING THE NEED FOR A UNIFORM CIVIL CODE.

10 SUNITA TIWARI CASE THIS CASE DEALT WITH THE PRACTICE OF FEMALE GENITAL
(2018) MUTILATION. THE COURT'S CONCERN FOR UNIFORMITY IN LAWS
PROTECTING BODILY INTEGRITY AND AUTONOMY OF WOMEN ALIGNS
WITH THE ETHOS BEHIND UCC.
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES
1 GUNUPATI THIS RULING WAS PIVOTAL IN DEFINING THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 194
KESHAVRAM REDDY CONCERNING LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGES. THE SUPREME COURT HELD
CASE (1954) THAT THE POWER OF THE LEGISLATURE TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT WAS
NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW, THUS REINFORCING LEGISLATIVE
AUTONOMY.
2 M.S.M. SHARMA THIS CASE WAS SIGNIFICANT AS IT DEALT WITH THE CONFLICT
CASE (1959) BETWEEN THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND LEGISLATIVE
PRIVILEGES. THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE BIHAR LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY'S RIGHT TO EXPEL MEMBERS AND RESTRICT PRESS
REPORTING ON ITS PROCEEDINGS, EMPHASIZING THE SUPREMACY OF
ARTICLE 194 OVER ARTICLE 19(1)(A) REGARDING LEGISLATIVE
PRIVILEGES.
3 U.P. ASSEMBLY THIS CASE WAS IMPORTANT FOR ITS EXPLORATION OF THE POWER OF
CASE (1964) LEGISLATIVE BODIES TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT. THE SUPREME COURT
HELD THAT WHILE LEGISLATURES HAVE THIS POWER, IT SHOULD NOT
CONFLICT WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION.
4 KESHAV SINGH'S IN THIS CASE, THE SUPREME COURT ASSERTED ITS RIGHT TO REVIEW
CASE (1965) LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS. IT INVOLVED
THE ARREST OF A PERSON FOR CONTEMPT OF THE UTTAR PRADESH
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, AND THE COURT'S INTERVENTION LED TO A
SIGNIFICANT DISCUSSION ON THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND THE
BALANCE BETWEEN LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGES AND FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS.
5 ARUN JAITLEY VS. THIS CASE INVOLVED A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE FREEDOM OF THE
THE INDIAN PRESS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE. THE SUPREME COURT BALANCED
EXPRESS CASE THESE INTERESTS, ASSERTING THE IMPORTANCE OF BOTH THE PRESS'S
(1987) ROLE IN A DEMOCRACY AND THE RESPECT FOR PARLIAMENTARY
PRIVILEGES.

6 P.V. NARASIMHA THIS CASE INVOLVED THE JMM BRIBERY SCANDAL AND WAS
RAO CASE (1998) SIGNIFICANT FOR ITS INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM 'VOTE' UNDER
ARTICLE 105. THE SUPREME COURT CONTROVERSIALLY HELD THAT
PARLIAMENTARY MEMBERS' BRIBED VOTES WERE IMMUNE FROM
JUDICIAL SCRUTINY UNDER PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE.
7 RAJA RAM PAL CASE THIS JUDGMENT WAS CRUCIAL IN INTERPRETING PARLIAMENTARY
(2007) PRIVILEGES IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPULSION OF MEMBERS FROM THE
PARLIAMENT. THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT WHILE THE PARLIAMENT
HAD THE AUTHORITY TO EXPEL MEMBERS, SUCH ACTIONS WERE
SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW TO PREVENT ANY ABUSE OF POWER.
RIGHT TO PROTEST
1 HIMAT LAL K. SHAH ESTABLISHED THE PRINCIPLE THAT PUBLIC PLACES CANNOT BE
CASE (1972) MONOPOLIZED FOR PROTESTS AND PRIOR PERMISSION FROM
AUTHORITIES IS NEEDED, BALANCING THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLY AND
MAINTAINING PUBLIC ORDER.
2 SHAHEEN WELFARE DEALT WITH THE RIGHTS OF PAVEMENT DWELLERS, INDIRECTLY

ASSOCIATION CASE IMPACTING THEIR ABILITY TO PROTEST AND CLAIM SPACE IN URBAN
(1996) AREAS.
3 T.K. RANGARAJAN HELD THAT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES DO NOT HAVE THE

CASE (2003) FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO STRIKE, IMPACTING THE NATURE OF
PROTESTS BY SUCH EMPLOYEES.
4 RAMLILA MAIDAN CASE EMPHASIZED THE RIGHT TO SLEEP AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER
(2012) ARTICLE 21 AND DISCUSSED THE IMPORTANCE OF NON-VIOLENT
PROTESTS AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE STATE TO MANAGE
THEM.
5 PEOPLE'S UNION FOR REINFORCED THE IMPORTANCE OF PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY AND

CIVIL LIBERTIES CASE PROTESTS IN A DEMOCRACY, STRESSING ON THE RIGHT TO DISSENT.
(2013)
6 COMMON CAUSE V. EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF NON-VIOLENT PROTESTS AS A

UNION OF INDIA CASE MEANS TO EXPRESS CONCERNS ABOUT GOVERNANCE AND POLICY.
(2018)

7 MAZDOOR KISAN HIGHLIGHTED THE IMPORTANCE OF PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY AND
SHAKTI SANGATHAN PROTEST AS AN ESSENTIAL EXPRESSION OF POLITICAL SPEECH AND
CASE (2018) PARTICIPATION.
8 ANURADHA BHASIN FOCUSED ON THE KASHMIR INTERNET SHUTDOWN, HIGHLIGHTING

CASE (2020) THE IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNICATION CHANNELS IN ORGANIZING
AND CONDUCTING PROTESTS.
9 AMIT SAHNI CASE DEALT WITH THE SHAHEEN BAGH PROTESTS, BALANCING THE RIGHT
(2020) TO PROTEST WITH PUBLIC ORDER AND THE RIGHT TO FREE
MOVEMENT OF OTHERS.
RIGHT TO INTERNET ACCESS

1 ANURADHA BHASIN THIS LANDMARK JUDGMENT RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT TO ACCESS THE
CASE (2020) INTERNET AS A PART OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF
SPEECH AND EXPRESSION UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A) AND THE RIGHT
TO CARRY ON ANY TRADE OR BUSINESS UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(G) OF
THE CONSTITUTION. THE COURT DECLARED THE INDEFINITE
SHUTDOWN OF THE INTERNET IN JAMMU AND KASHMIR AS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
2 FAHEEMA SHIRIN CASE THE KERALA HIGH COURT RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT TO ACCESS THE
(2019) INTERNET AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT FORMING PART OF THE RIGHT
TO PRIVACY AND THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION. THOUGH A HIGH COURT JUDGMENT, IT SET A
SIGNIFICANT PRECEDENT.
3 FOUNDATION FOR THIS CASE INVOLVED A CHALLENGE TO THE RESTRICTIONS ON

MEDIA MOBILE INTERNET SPEED IN JAMMU AND KASHMIR. THE SUPREME
PROFESSIONALS CASE COURT ESTABLISHED A "SPECIAL COMMITTEE" TO REVIEW THESE
(2020) RESTRICTIONS, UNDERLINING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RIGHT TO
INTERNET ACCESS.
COOPERATIVES

1 RAJENDRA N. SHAH THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN 2021 DELIVERED A LANDMARK
CASE (2021) JUDGMENT ON THE 97TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, WHICH
DEALT WITH THE RIGHTS OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES. THE COURT
STRUCK DOWN PART OF THE AMENDMENT, PARTICULARLY THE PART
DEALING WITH THE FORMATION AND REGULATION OF COOPERATIVE
SOCIETIES. THIS JUDGMENT HAD SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS FOR
THE AUTONOMY OF STATE LEGISLATURES IN REGULATING
COOPERATIVES AND AFFIRMED THE CONSTITUTIONAL RECOGNITION
OF COOPERATIVES AS A CRUCIAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC STRUCTURE.
2 SATYA PAL DANG CASE THIS CASE HIGHLIGHTED THE AUTONOMY OF COOPERATIVE
(1969) SOCIETIES, RULING THAT THEY ARE NOT 'STATE' UNDER ARTICLE 12
OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND THUS NOT SUBJECT TO WRIT
JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 32.
3 AJAY HASIA CASE ALTHOUGH FOCUSING ON THE DEFINITION OF 'STATE' UNDER

(1981) ARTICLE 12, THIS JUDGMENT INDIRECTLY IMPACTS COOPERATIVE
SOCIETIES, PARTICULARLY THOSE SIGNIFICANTLY FINANCED AND
CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
4 ZOROASTRIAN THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY’S RIGHT

COOPERATIVE TO CHOOSE ITS MEMBERS, REFLECTING THE PRINCIPLE OF
HOUSING SOCIETY VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION FUNDAMENTAL TO COOPERATIVES.
CASE (2005)
5 DAMYANTI NARANGA THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES SHOULD
CASE (1971) BE FREE FROM GOVERNMENT CONTROL, HIGHLIGHTING THE
IMPORTANCE OF AUTONOMY IN COOPERATIVE FUNCTIONING.
NATIONAL SYMBOLS, NATIONAL ANTHEM,

NATIONAL FLAG
1 BIJOE EMMANUEL THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT STUDENTS CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO
CASE (1986) SING THE NATIONAL ANTHEM IF IT VIOLATES THEIR RELIGIOUS
BELIEFS, UNDERLINING THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
EXPRESSION.

2 NAVEEN JINDAL THIS LANDMARK JUDGMENT ALLOWED PRIVATE CITIZENS TO HOIST THE
CASE (2004) NATIONAL FLAG ON THEIR PREMISES, EMPHASIZING THE FLAG'S
UNIFYING AND INSPIRING ROLE.
3 SHYAM NARAYAN THE COURT ISSUED GUIDELINES MANDATING THAT CINEMA HALLS
CHOUKSEY CASE ACROSS INDIA PLAY THE NATIONAL ANTHEM BEFORE THE START OF
(2017) FILMS, AND THAT THE AUDIENCE MUST STAND AS A MARK OF RESPECT.
THIS WAS LATER MODIFIED IN 2018.
4 COMMON CAUSE V. THE SUPREME COURT MODIFIED ITS EARLIER ORDER MANDATING THE
UNION OF INDIA PLAYING OF THE NATIONAL ANTHEM IN CINEMAS, MAKING IT OPTIONAL
CASE (2018) BUT EMPHASIZING RESPECT FOR IT.
5 KARAN JOHAR CASE THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DEALT WITH THE DEPICTION OF THE
(2016) NATIONAL ANTHEM IN A FILM, UNDERLINING THE NEED FOR ITS
RESPECTFUL PORTRAYAL.
OFFICIAL LANGUAGE ISSUE

1 STATE OF KARNATAKA V. THE SUPREME COURT RULED ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL

UNION OF INDIA CASE MANDATE FOR THE PROGRESSIVE USE OF HINDI AND UPHELD
(1977) THE USE OF ENGLISH ALONGSIDE HINDI AS AN ASSOCIATE
OFFICIAL LANGUAGE.
2 D.A.V. COLLEGE CASE (1971) THE SUPREME COURT DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF MEDIUM OF
INSTRUCTION, ASSERTING THAT LINGUISTIC MINORITIES HAVE
THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE THEIR MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION.
3 ENGLISH MEDIUM THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT UPHELD THE STATE'S POLICY
STUDENTS’ PARENTS MANDATING THE MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION IN PRIMARY
ASSOCIATION CASE (1994) SCHOOLS TO BE IN THE MOTHER TONGUE OR REGIONAL
LANGUAGE.
4 STATE OF HP V. UOI CASE THE SUPREME COURT RULED ON THE USE OF HINDI AS THE
(1986) OFFICIAL LANGUAGE IN HIMACHAL PRADESH, EMPHASIZING
THE STATE'S AUTONOMY IN LANGUAGE MATTERS.
5 RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL THE MADRAS HIGH COURT RULED ON THE COMPULSORY
CASE (2014) IMPOSITION OF TAMIL IN SCHOOLS, ADDRESSING THE

BALANCE BETWEEN STATE LANGUAGE POLICY AND INDIVIDUAL
RIGHTS.
6 R. VENKATARAMAN CASE THE SUPREME COURT ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF THE

(1984) LANGUAGE OF THE UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
(UPSC) EXAMS, BALANCING LANGUAGE RIGHTS WITH NATIONAL
INTEGRATION.
7 K. SHYAM SUNDER CASE THE SUPREME COURT DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF THE MEDIUM
(2011) OF INSTRUCTION, AFFIRMING THE STATE'S POLICY OF
EDUCATION IN THE TAMIL LANGUAGE.
8 M. KARUNANIDHI CASE THE SUPREME COURT RULED ON THE VALIDITY OF

(1979) PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED IN HINDI,
AFFIRMING THE USE OF HINDI AND ENGLISH IN
PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS.
TRIBUNALS
1 L. CHANDRA KUMAR THIS LANDMARK JUDGMENT HELD THAT THE POWER OF JUDICIAL
CASE (1997) REVIEW OF HIGH COURTS AND THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT BE
TAKEN AWAY BY ESTABLISHING TRIBUNALS, ENSURING THE
SUPREMACY OF THE JUDICIARY.
2 UNION OF INDIA V. R. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL
GANDHI CASE (2010) COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL (NCLT) AND NATIONAL COMPANY LAW
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (NCLAT) WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN PARTS,
EMPHASIZING THE NEED FOR THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION IN
TRIBUNALS.
3 S.P. SAMPATH KUMAR THIS JUDGMENT UPHELD THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE

CASE (1987) ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS, BUT WITH CERTAIN SAFEGUARDS TO
ENSURE INDEPENDENCE AND FAIRNESS.
4 ROJER MATHEW V. THE COURT STRUCK DOWN CERTAIN PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE
SOUTH INDIAN BANK FINANCE ACT, 2017, ON THE GROUND OF THEM BEING AGAINST THE
LTD. CASE (2019) PRINCIPLES OF INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY.

5 MADRAS BAR THE SUPREME COURT DECLARED THE NATIONAL TAX TRIBUNAL ACT
ASSOCIATION CASE 2005 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, EMPHASIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF
(2014) JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE IN MEMBERS OF TRIBUNALS.
6 GUJARAT URJA VIKAS THIS CASE DEALT WITH THE JURISDICTION OF THE ELECTRICITY
NIGAM LIMITED CASE TRIBUNAL, UNDERSCORING THE ROLE OF SPECIALIZED TRIBUNALS
(2008) IN TECHNICAL SECTORS.
7 R.K. JAIN CASE (1993) THE SUPREME COURT EMPHASIZED THE NEED FOR INDEPENDENCE
AND IMPARTIALITY IN THE FUNCTIONING OF TRIBUNALS.
8 NCLT BAR FOCUSED ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY AND FUNCTIONING OF THE

ASSOCIATION CASE NCLT AND NCLAT, ESPECIALLY REGARDING THEIR COMPOSITION AND
(2019) THE QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS.
9 SWISS RIBBONS PVT. UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE INSOLVENCY AND
LTD. CASE (2019) BANKRUPTCY CODE, WHICH INVOLVES THE ADJUDICATION BY THE
NCLT AND NCLAT.
10 DELHI HIGH COURT THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DEBT
BAR ASSOCIATION RECOVERY TRIBUNALS, AFFIRMING THE ROLE OF TRIBUNALS IN
CASE (2002) SPECIFIC AREAS OF LAW.
11 CAT V. P.K. MISHRA ADDRESSED THE JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF THE CAT IN CASES
CASE (1997) INVOLVING PUBLIC SERVICE MATTERS.
ANTI-DEFECTION LAW
1 KIHOTO HOLLOHAN V. THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE

ZACHILLHU CASE TENTH SCHEDULE, AFFIRMING THAT THE LAW DID NOT VIOLATE ANY
(1992) RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 105 AND ARTICLE 194 AND WAS WITHIN THE
POWERS OF THE PARLIAMENT TO ENACT.
2 RAVI S. NAIK CASE THE COURT INTERPRETED THE SCOPE OF THE TERM 'VOLUNTARILY
(1994) GIVING UP MEMBERSHIP' OF A POLITICAL PARTY, WHICH IS CRUCIAL
FOR DETERMINING DEFECTION.
3 G. VISWANATHAN THE COURT HELD THAT THE DECISION OF THE SPEAKER UNDER
CASE (1996) TENTH SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW ON LIMITED

GROUNDS, ENSURING CHECKS AND BALANCES IN THE
DISQUALIFICATION PROCESS.
4 SHRIMANTH THE SUPREME COURT REITERATED THE LIMITED SCOPE OF JUDICIAL

BALASAHEB PATIL REVIEW AGAINST THE SPEAKER'S DECISION ON DISQUALIFICATION
CASE (2019) UNDER THE TENTH SCHEDULE.
5 JAGJIT SINGH CASE THIS JUDGMENT LAID DOWN GUIDELINES FOR INTERPRETING
(2006) DEFECTION AND SPLITS IN POLITICAL PARTIES UNDER THE TENTH
SCHEDULE.
6 MAYAWATI V. THE SUPREME COURT DEALT WITH THE INTERPRETATION OF THE

MARKANDEYA CHAND TENTH SCHEDULE IN THE CONTEXT OF A 'SPLIT' IN A POLITICAL
CASE (1998) PARTY.
7 S.A. SAMPATH KUMAR THIS CASE EMPHASIZED THE NON-APPLICABILITY OF THE ANTI-
CASE (2014) DEFECTION LAW TO INDEPENDENT MEMBERS WHO SUBSEQUENTLY
JOIN POLITICAL PARTIES.
8 SHRI MAHACHANDRA CLARIFIED THE APPLICATION OF THE TENTH SCHEDULE TO MEMBERS

PRASAD SINGH CASE OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
(2004)
OFFICE OF PROFIT
1 JAYA BACHCHAN CASE THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD JAYA BACHCHAN'S

(2006) DISQUALIFICATION FROM THE RAJYA SABHA FOR HOLDING AN
OFFICE OF PROFIT AS THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE UTTAR PRADESH
FILM DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL. THE JUDGMENT CLARIFIED THE
CONCEPT OF ‘OFFICE OF PROFIT’ AND EMPHASIZED THAT EVEN IF
THE OFFICE CARRIES NO REMUNERATION, IT CAN STILL BE AN
OFFICE OF PROFIT IF IT OFFERS POTENTIAL FOR FINANCIAL GAINS.
2 PRADYUT BORDOLOI V. THE SUPREME COURT ELABORATED ON WHAT CONSTITUTES AN

SWAPAN ROY CASE 'OFFICE OF PROFIT' UNDER THE GOVERNMENT. THE COURT HELD
(2001) THAT AN OFFICE MUST HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO BRING FINANCIAL
GAIN OR BENEFITS, AND IT IS NOT THE NAME OF THE OFFICE BUT
THE NATURE OF DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS THAT IS RELEVANT FOR
DETERMINATION.

3 GURUDAS DASGUPTA THE DELHI HIGH COURT DEALT WITH THE DISQUALIFICATION OF
CASE (2007) MPS FROM THE LOK SABHA FOR HOLDING OFFICES OF PROFIT.
THIS CASE SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTED TO THE
UNDERSTANDING OF THE TERM ‘OFFICE OF PROFIT’ AND
UNDERSCORED THE IMPORTANCE OF THE BASIC CONCEPT THAT A
MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT SHOULD REMAIN UNBIASED AND NOT BE
INFLUENCED BY EXTERNAL INDUCEMENTS.
4 ASHOK KUMAR THE SUPREME COURT EXAMINED THE CASE OF A WEST BENGAL
BHATTACHARYYA V. AJOY MLA HOLDING AN OFFICE OF PROFIT. THE JUDGMENT
BISWAS CASE (1985) HIGHLIGHTED THE NEED FOR LEGISLATORS TO AVOID ANY
CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN THEIR DUTIES AS PUBLIC
REPRESENTATIVES AND ANY BENEFIT THEY MIGHT RECEIVE FROM
AN OFFICE OF PROFIT.
5 SHIVAMURTHY SWAMI V. THE SUPREME COURT RULED ON THE DISQUALIFICATION OF AN

AGADI SANGANNA MLA FOR HOLDING AN OFFICE OF PROFIT. THE CASE IS
ANDANAPPA CASE (1971) SIGNIFICANT FOR ITS INTERPRETATION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES AN
'OFFICE' AND THE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING
WHETHER SUCH AN OFFICE FALLS UNDER THE EXEMPTION
GRANTED BY LAW.
SEDITION
1 KEDAR NATH THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECTION 124A
SINGH CASE (SEDITION), BUT LIMITED ITS APPLICATION TO ACTS INVOLVING
(1962) INTENTION OR TENDENCY TO CREATE DISORDER, OR INCITEMENT TO
VIOLENCE. THIS JUDGMENT IS PIVOTAL IN DEFINING THE SCOPE OF
SEDITION IN INDIA.
2 BALWANT SINGH THE SUPREME COURT ACQUITTED INDIVIDUALS CHARGED UNDER SECTION
CASE (1995) 124A, EMPHASIZING THAT MERE SLOGANEERING WHICH DID NOT INCITE
VIOLENCE OR PUBLIC DISORDER DID NOT CONSTITUTE SEDITION. THIS
CASE IS SIGNIFICANT FOR INTERPRETING WHAT CONSTITUTES
'INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE'.
3 SHREYA WHILE PRIMARILY ABOUT ONLINE SPEECH, THIS JUDGMENT IS PERTINENT

SINGHAL CASE FOR ITS OBSERVATIONS ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND THE MISUSE OF
(2015) LAWS LIKE SEDITION AGAINST DISSENTING OPINIONS.

4 INDRA DAS CASE THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT ONLY SPEECH THAT AMOUNTS TO
(2011) ‘INCITEMENT TO IMMINENT LAWLESS ACTION’ CAN BE CRIMINALIZED,
WHICH IS CRUCIAL FOR UNDERSTANDING THE LIMITS OF SEDITION LAW.
5 SANSKAR THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT PROVIDED GUIDELINES FOR POLICE ON

MARATHE CASE SEDITION, EMPHASIZING THAT CRITICISM OF POLITICAL LEADERS OR THE
(2015) GOVERNMENT DOES NOT INVOKE SEDITION.
6 ARUP BHUYAN THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT MERE MEMBERSHIP OF A BANNED
CASE (2011) ORGANIZATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SEDITION UNLESS THERE IS
EVIDENCE OF ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT IN VIOLENT ACTS. THIS JUDGMENT IS
SIGNIFICANT FOR DISTINGUISHING PASSIVE ASSOCIATION FROM ACTIVE
SEDITION.
7 BINAYAK SEN THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT'S JUDGMENT ON DR. BINAYAK SEN’S
CASE (2011) CASE DREW ATTENTION TO THE MISUSE OF SEDITION LAWS AGAINST
ACTIVISTS, THOUGH IT WAS LATER SET ASIDE BY THE SUPREME COURT.
8 ASEEM TRIVEDI THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DROPPED SEDITION CHARGES AGAINST
CASE (2012) CARTOONIST ASEEM TRIVEDI, REITERATING THAT FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, UNLESS IT INCITES VIOLENCE.
9 COMMON CAUSE A PIL CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE SEDITION LAW
V. UNION OF IS NOTABLE FOR CONTINUING THE DEBATE ON THE APPROPRIATENESS OF
INDIA CASE SEDITION IN A DEMOCRATIC POLITY.
(2016)

HATE SPEECH
1 PRAVASI BHALAI THE SUPREME COURT HIGHLIGHTED THE NEED FOR LAWS TO CURB HATE
SANGATHAN CASE SPEECH, EMPHASIZING THAT HATE SPEECH THREATENS THE UNITY AND
(2014) HARMONY OF THE NATION AND POSES A GRAVE THREAT TO NATIONAL
INTEGRATION.
2 SHREYA SINGHAL THIS JUDGMENT STRUCK DOWN SECTION 66A OF THE IT ACT, WHICH WAS
CASE (2015) OFTEN MISUSED TO ARREST INDIVIDUALS FOR ONLINE SPEECH,
INCLUDING HATE SPEECH. THE COURT UPHELD FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
WHILE ACKNOWLEDGING THE NEED TO REGULATE HATE SPEECH ONLINE.
3 M.F. HUSSAIN DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF ARTISTIC FREEDOM AND HATE SPEECH. THE
CASE (2008) DELHI HIGH COURT DISMISSED THE CASE AGAINST ARTIST M.F. HUSSAIN,
WHO WAS ACCUSED OF HURTING RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS, STATING THAT
THE ESSENCE OF TOLERANCE IS ACCEPTING AND RESPECTING OTHERS'
VIEWS.
4 BILAL AHMED THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD A CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 153A OF
KALOO CASE THE IPC FOR HATE SPEECH, EMPHASIZING THAT SPEECH WHICH
(1997) PROMOTES ENMITY BETWEEN DIFFERENT GROUPS ON GROUNDS OF
RELIGION, RACE, PLACE OF BIRTH, RESIDENCE, LANGUAGE, ETC., AND
DISRUPTS COMMUNAL HARMONY IS PUNISHABLE.
5 AMISH DEVGAN THE SUPREME COURT PROVIDED RELIEF TO A JOURNALIST FROM ARREST
CASE (2020) FOR ALLEGED HATE SPEECH BUT REFUSED TO QUASH THE FIRS AGAINST
HIM, REAFFIRMING THE LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN CASES OF HATE
SPEECH.
DEATH PENALTY
1 BACHAN SINGH CASE THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
(1980) DEATH PENALTY, STATING IT SHOULD BE IMPOSED ONLY IN THE
"RAREST OF RARE" CASES WHEN THE ALTERNATIVE OPTION IS
UNQUESTIONABLY FORECLOSED.

2 MACHHI SINGH CASE THIS CASE ELABORATED ON THE 'RAREST OF RARE' DOCTRINE,
(1983) PROVIDING GUIDELINES FOR APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE IN
DETERMINING WHETHER A CASE WARRANTS THE DEATH PENALTY.
3 SANTOSH KUMAR THE COURT HELD THAT SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF THE

SATISHBHUSHAN ACCUSED SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS MITIGATING FACTORS IN
BARIYAR CASE (2009) DEATH PENALTY CASES, MARKING A SHIFT TOWARDS A MORE
HUMANE APPROACH.
4 RAJENDRA PRASAD CASE THE SUPREME COURT EMPHASIZED CONSIDERING THE

(1979) CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CRIMINAL ALONG WITH THE CRIME TO
DECIDE ON THE DEATH PENALTY.
5 SHATRUGHAN CHAUHAN THE SUPREME COURT LAID DOWN GUIDELINES TO PROTECT THE
CASE (2014) RIGHTS OF DEATH ROW CONVICTS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO
LEGAL AID, MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION, AND FAIR PROCEDURE
FOR MERCY PETITIONS.
MOB LYNCHING
1 TEHSEEN S. THE SUPREME COURT CONDEMNED THE INCREASING INCIDENTS OF

POONAWALLA CASE LYNCHING AND DIRECTED THE CENTRAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS TO
(2018) ENACT EFFECTIVE LEGISLATION TO PREVENT SUCH CRIMES. IT ALSO
ISSUED COMPREHENSIVE GUIDELINES TO DEAL WITH MOB VIOLENCE
AND LYNCHING.
2 SUBHASH THE COURT’S DIRECTIVES AIMED AT PREVENTING MISUSE OF THE SC/ST

KASHINATH (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT WERE SEEN IN THE CONTEXT OF
MAHAJAN CASE PROTECTING INDIVIDUALS FROM MOB LYNCHING AND OTHER FORMS OF
(2018) VIGILANTE JUSTICE.
3 PRAVASI BHALAI THE SUPREME COURT HIGHLIGHTED THE NEED TO CURB HATE SPEECH
SANGATHAN CASE TO PREVENT INSTANCES OF MOB LYNCHING AND COMMUNAL VIOLENCE.
(2014)
4 AMARNATH CASE A PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT DECISION EMPHASIZING THE
HARYANA (2012) STATE'S DUTY TO PROTECT CITIZENS FROM MOB VIOLENCE AND ILLEGAL
GATHERINGS.

5 BABUBHAI CASE THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT'S JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE, RELATED TO
GUJARAT (2010) COMMUNAL RIOTS, DEALT WITH THE STATE'S RESPONSIBILITY TO
PREVENT AND CONTROL MOB LYNCHING AND COMMUNAL VIOLENCE.
FORCED CONVERSION
1 REV. THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE MADHYA

STAINISLAUS PRADESH AND ORISSA LAWS RESTRICTING RELIGIOUS CONVERSIONS BY
CASE (1977) FORCE, FRAUD, OR ALLUREMENT, AFFIRMING THE STATE'S POWER TO
REGULATE RELIGIOUS CONVERSIONS TO MAINTAIN PUBLIC ORDER.
2 SARLA MUDGAL THIS CASE ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF RELIGIOUS CONVERSION FOR THE
CASE (1995) PURPOSE OF POLYGAMY. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT A HINDU
HUSBAND, CONVERTING TO ISLAM TO PRACTICE POLYGAMY, DOES NOT
AUTOMATICALLY DISSOLVE HIS HINDU MARRIAGE.
3 HADIYA CASE THE SUPREME COURT, IN THIS CASE, EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF
(2018) INDIVIDUAL AUTONOMY AND THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE ONE'S RELIGION,
REAFFIRMING THE RIGHT TO CONVERT TO ANOTHER RELIGION OUT OF FREE
WILL.
4 LILY THOMAS THIS CASE DEALT WITH RELIGIOUS CONVERSION AND BIGAMY. THE
CASE (2000) SUPREME COURT HELD THAT CONVERSION TO ANOTHER RELIGION FOR THE
SOLE PURPOSE OF REMARRYING IS AN ABUSE OF PERSONAL LAW AND NOT
VALID.
5 REV. MICHAEL THE MADRAS HIGH COURT UPHELD A LAW REGULATING CONVERSIONS,
RAJ CASE (1988) STATING THAT THE STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO REGULATE RELIGIOUS
ACTIVITIES TO MAINTAIN PUBLIC ORDER, INCLUDING PREVENTING FORCED
CONVERSIONS.
PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS

1 KESAVANANDA THIS LANDMARK CASE ESTABLISHED THE DOCTRINE OF THE BASIC

BHARATI CASE STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION, WITHIN WHICH THE SEPARATION
(1973) OF POWERS IS A KEY FEATURE. THE JUDGMENT ENSURED THAT NO

AMENDMENT COULD DESTROY THE ESSENTIAL FRAMEWORK OF THE
CONSTITUTION, INCLUDING THE SEPARATION OF POWERS.
2 INDIRA NEHRU THIS CASE IS SIGNIFICANT FOR STRIKING DOWN THE 39TH
GANDHI V. RAJ AMENDMENT ACT, WHICH SOUGHT TO PLACE THE ELECTION OF THE
NARAIN CASE (1975) PRIME MINISTER BEYOND JUDICIAL REVIEW, REAFFIRMING THE
PRINCIPLE OF CHECKS AND BALANCES AMONG THE BRANCHES OF
GOVERNMENT.
3 S.P. GUPTA CASE KNOWN AS THE JUDGES' TRANSFER CASE, IT ELABORATED ON THE
(1981) INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY AND THE EXTENT OF EXECUTIVE
POWER IN THE APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES, AN ESSENTIAL ASPECT OF
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS.
4 L. CHANDRA KUMAR IT WAS HELD THAT THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE HIGH
CASE (1997) COURTS AND THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT BE OUSTED BY
ESTABLISHING ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS, PRESERVING THE
JUDICIARY'S ROLE IN OVERSEEING ACTIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE AND
LEGISLATURE.
5 RAM JAWAYA KAPUR THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE EXECUTIVE CANNOT USURP THE
CASE (1955) LAW-MAKING FUNCTIONS OF THE LEGISLATURE, THUS UNDERLINING
THE DISTINCT ROLES AND LIMITATIONS OF EACH BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT.
6 RAJA RAM PAL CASE THIS CASE UNDERSCORED THE SUPREME COURT'S POWER OF JUDICIAL
(2007) REVIEW OVER PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS, IN CONTEXT WITH THE
EXPULSION OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT, THUS BALANCING THE
POWERS BETWEEN THE LEGISLATURE AND THE JUDICIARY.
7 UJJAM BAI CASE THE SUPREME COURT ASSERTED ITS POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
(1962) OVER QUASI-JUDICIAL ACTS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES,
REINFORCING THE SEPARATION OF POWERS.
8 DELHI HIGH COURT THE COURT UPHELD THE ESTABLISHMENT OF DEBT RECOVERY
BAR ASSOCIATION TRIBUNALS, BALANCING THE NEED FOR SPECIALIZED TRIBUNALS WITH
CASE (2002) THE TRADITIONAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM, REFLECTING ON THE SEPARATION
OF POWERS IN THE CONTEXT OF ADJUDICATING FINANCIAL DISPUTES.
PREAMBLE

1 BERUBARI UNION AND IN THIS PRESIDENTIAL REFERENCE, THE SUPREME COURT HELD
EXCHANGE OF THAT THE PREAMBLE IS NOT A PART OF THE CONSTITUTION AND
ENCLAVES, RE (1960) HENCE, IT CANNOT BE AMENDED. THIS CASE WAS ABOUT THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDIA-PAKISTAN AGREEMENT RELATED TO
BERUBARI UNION. THE JUDGMENT STATED THAT THE PREAMBLE
SETS THE IDEALS AND ASPIRATIONS WHICH THE CONSTITUTION
SEEKS TO ACHIEVE AND MANIFEST.
2 KESAVANANDA THIS LANDMARK JUDGMENT OVERRULED THE EARLIER DECISION IN

BHARATI CASE (1973) THE BERUBARI CASE, STATING THAT THE PREAMBLE IS A PART OF
THE CONSTITUTION. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE
PREAMBLE COULD BE AMENDED, BUT THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE
CONSTITUTION, AS LAID DOWN IN THE PREAMBLE, CANNOT BE
ALTERED. THIS CASE ESTABLISHED THE DOCTRINE OF THE BASIC
STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
3 UNION OF INDIA V. THIS CASE REAFFIRMED THE POSITION THAT THE PREAMBLE FORMS
LIC OF INDIA (1995) PART OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IS SUBJECT TO THE AMENDING
POWER OF THE PARLIAMENT, AS LONG AS THE BASIC STRUCTURE IS
NOT DESTROYED. THE COURT OBSERVED THAT THE PREAMBLE IS
THE KEY TO UNRAVELLING THE MINDS OF THE MAKERS OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
4 S.R. BOMMAI CASE WHILE THE CASE PRIMARILY DEALT WITH THE PRESIDENT'S POWER
(1994) UNDER ARTICLE 356, THE SUPREME COURT REFERRED TO THE
PREAMBLE TO REITERATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL IDENTITY OF INDIA
AS A SECULAR STATE. THIS CASE REINFORCED THE CONCEPT THAT
THE CHARACTER OF THE NATION AS ENSHRINED IN THE PREAMBLE
FORMS PART OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND
CANNOT BE AMENDED.
5 I.R. COELHO CASE IN THIS CASE, THE SUPREME COURT, WHILE NOT DIRECTLY DEALING
(2007) WITH AN AMENDMENT TO THE PREAMBLE, REITERATED ITS POSITION
FROM THE KESAVANANDA BHARATI CASE. THE COURT HELD THAT
ANY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, INCLUDING ONE THAT COULD
AFFECT THE PREAMBLE, IS SUBJECT TO THE BASIC STRUCTURE
DOCTRINE.

6 MANEKA GANDHI CASE THIS CASE EXPANDED THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 21, RELATING IT TO
(1978) THE PREAMBLE. IT WAS HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND
PERSONAL LIBERTY MUST BE INTERPRETED IN LIGHT OF THE
PREAMBLE’S COMMITMENT TO JUSTICE, LIBERTY, AND EQUALITY.
7 UNION CARBIDE IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY, THIS CASE
CORPORATION CASE HIGHLIGHTED THE IMPORTANCE OF 'JUSTICE - SOCIAL, ECONOMIC,
(1989) AND POLITICAL', AS STATED IN THE PREAMBLE, IN PROVIDING
RELIEF AND REHABILITATION TO THE VICTIMS.
8 NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR THIS LANDMARK JUDGMENT ON DECRIMINALIZING HOMOSEXUALITY

CASE (2018) UPHELD THE PREAMBLE’S PRINCIPLES OF EQUALITY, DIGNITY, AND
LIBERTY, AS IT STRUCK DOWN SECTION 377 OF THE IPC.
9 JUSTICE K.S. IN THIS CASE, THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY WAS DECLARED A

PUTTASWAMY (RETD.) FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, RESONATING WITH THE PREAMBLE'S
CASE (2017) EMPHASIS ON LIBERTY AND DIGNITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL.
10 UNNI KRISHNAN, J.P. THIS JUDGMENT, BY RECOGNIZING THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION AS

V. STATE OF ANDHRA IMPLICIT IN THE RIGHT TO LIFE, UPHELD THE PREAMBLE’S GOAL OF
PRADESH (1993) ENSURING JUSTICE AND EQUALITY FOR ALL CITIZENS.
UNION AND ITS TERRITORY

1 STATE OF WEST BENGAL V. UNION THIS CASE UPHELD THE POWER OF PARLIAMENT TO
OF INDIA CASE (1963) DIMINISH THE AREA OF A STATE UNDER ARTICLE 3 OF THE
CONSTITUTION, EMPHASIZING THE FLEXIBILITY OF
INDIAN FEDERALISM.
2 BERUBARI UNION CASE (1960) THE SUPREME COURT CLARIFIED THAT THE POWER OF
PARLIAMENT TO DIMINISH THE AREA OF A STATE UNDER
ARTICLE 3 DOES NOT COVER THE CESSION OF INDIAN
TERRITORY TO A FOREIGN STATE, WHICH REQUIRES A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

3 KESAVANANDA BHARATI CASE WHILE PRIMARILY KNOWN FOR ESTABLISHING THE BASIC
(1973) STRUCTURE DOCTRINE, THIS CASE ALSO AFFIRMED THE
POWER OF PARLIAMENT UNDER ARTICLE 368 TO ALTER
THE TERRITORY OF STATES WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL
FRAMEWORK.
4 SUKUMAR PYNE CASE (1966) THE CASE DEALT WITH THE REORGANIZATION OF STATES
AND THE POWER OF PARLIAMENT TO ALTER STATE
BOUNDARIES, UNDERSCORING THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROCESS FOR SUCH REORGANIZATION.
5 RE: BERUBARI UNION AND THIS PRESIDENTIAL REFERENCE CASE DISCUSSED THE
EXCHANGE OF ENCLAVES, PROCEDURE FOR THE TRANSFER OF TERRITORIES AND
REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE EMPHASIZED THAT ANY CESSION OF INDIAN TERRITORY
143(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF TO ANOTHER COUNTRY REQUIRES A CONSTITUTIONAL
INDIA (1960) AMENDMENT.
6 BABULAL PARATE CASE (1960) THE JUDGMENT DEALT WITH THE POWERS OF THE STATE
AND CENTRAL GOVERNMENTS UNDER ARTICLE 3 IN THE
REORGANIZATION OF STATES.
7 N. MASTHAN SAHIB CASE (1962) THE CASE REVOLVED AROUND THE INTEGRATION OF THE
TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY INTO INDIA AND THE
APPLICATION OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION TO THIS
FORMER FRENCH COLONY.
8 PREM NATH KAUL CASE (1959) THIS CASE DEALT WITH THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 370
AND THE SPECIAL STATUS OF JAMMU & KASHMIR,
EMPHASIZING THE TEMPORARY PROVISION OF THIS
ARTICLE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE STATE'S INTEGRATION
WITH INDIA.
9 IN RE: CAUVERY WATER DISPUTES DEALT WITH INTERSTATE RIVER WATER DISPUTES,
TRIBUNAL (2018) HIGHLIGHTING THE ROLE OF THE UNION IN MEDIATING
AND MANAGING CONFLICTS BETWEEN STATES OVER
NATURAL RESOURCES.
CITIZENSHIP

1 PRADEEP KUMAR CASE THIS CASE DISCUSSED THE CRITERIA FOR ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP
(2005) AND EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF ADHERING TO LEGAL
PROVISIONS FOR CITIZENSHIP UNDER THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION.
2 SARBANANDA THE SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN THE ILLEGAL MIGRANTS

SONOWAL CASE (2005) (DETERMINATION BY TRIBUNALS) ACT, 1983, FOR BEING BIASED IN
FAVOUR OF ILLEGAL MIGRANTS AND NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECTING
THE RIGHTS OF INDIAN CITIZENS IN ASSAM.
3 CENTRE FOR PUBLIC THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF THE AADHAAR ACT,
INTEREST LITIGATION WHICH HAS SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS FOR CITIZENSHIP AND THE
CASE (2019) IDENTIFICATION OF INDIVIDUALS IN INDIA.
4 LOUIS DE RAEDT CASE THE COURT HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO RESIDE AND SETTLE IN INDIA,
(1991) WHICH IS A PART OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY, IS
AVAILABLE ONLY TO CITIZENS AND NOT TO FOREIGNERS.
5 PRADYUMAN SINGH THE COURT DISCUSSED THE RIGHTS OF OVERSEAS CITIZENS OF

CASE (1995) INDIA, A CATEGORY OF CITIZENSHIP INTRODUCED FOR PEOPLE OF
INDIAN ORIGIN LIVING ABROAD.
6 RAMESH DALAL CASE THIS CASE DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF DUAL CITIZENSHIP,
(2005) HIGHLIGHTING THE LEGAL PROVISIONS AND RESTRICTIONS RELATED
TO HOLDING INDIAN CITIZENSHIP AND CITIZENSHIP OF ANOTHER
COUNTRY.
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
ARTICLE 14 - RIGHT TO EQUALITY
1 ANWAR ALI SARKAR THIS LANDMARK JUDGMENT HELD THAT CLASSIFICATIONS IN LAWS
CASE (1952) SHOULD BE REASONABLE AND NOT ARBITRARY TO COMPLY WITH
ARTICLE 14. IT SET A PRECEDENT FOR THE EVALUATION OF
DISCRIMINATORY STATE ACTIONS.
2 KESAVANANDA ESTABLISHED THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE, ASSERTING THAT

BHARATI V. STATE OF THE CONSTITUTION'S FUNDAMENTAL FEATURES, INCLUDING THE
KERALA (1973)

RIGHT TO EQUALITY, CANNOT BE ABROGATED BY ANY
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
3 E.P. ROYAPPA CASE THIS JUDGMENT INTRODUCED THE 'ARBITRARINESS' TEST IN ARTICLE
(1974) 14, STATING THAT EQUALITY IS ANTITHETIC TO ARBITRARINESS. ANY
STATE ACTION MUST NOT BE ARBITRARY TO COMPLY WITH THE RIGHT
TO EQUALITY.
4 AJAY HASIA CASE THIS CASE EXPANDED THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 14 BY HOLDING THAT IF
(1981) A BODY IS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OR AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT, IT
MUST CONFORM TO THE EQUALITY CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION. IT
BROADENED THE APPLICATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS TO 'STATE'
ACTIONS.
5 D.S. NAKARA CASE THE JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE ENSURED EQUALITY IN THE MATTER OF
(1983) PENSIONS, RULING THAT A CLASSIFICATION BETWEEN PENSIONERS IS
VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14. IT UNDERSCORED THE PRINCIPLE OF
EQUALITY IN STATE TREATMENT OF PENSIONERS.
6 JAVED V. STATE OF UPHELD THE DISQUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE

HARYANA CASE ASSEMBLY ON THE GROUNDS OF HAVING MORE THAN TWO CHILDREN,
(2003) STATING IT DID NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO EQUALITY. IT
EMPHASIZED THE STATE'S INTEREST IN POPULATION CONTROL.
7 ASHUTOSH GUPTA V. ADDRESSED THE PRINCIPLE OF 'EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK' AND
STATE OF RAJASTHAN HELD THAT TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES ARE ENTITLED TO THE SAME
(2002) WAGES AS REGULAR EMPLOYEES IF THE NATURE OF WORK IS THE
SAME, AFFIRMING THE EQUALITY PRINCIPLE IN EMPLOYMENT.
ARTICLE 15 - PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION

1 CHAMPAKAM THE SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN A GOVERNMENT ORDER THAT

DORAIRAJAN CASE PROVIDED CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS IN MEDICAL AND ENGINEERING
(1951) COLLEGES, RULING THAT IT VIOLATED ARTICLE 15. THIS JUDGMENT LED
TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH INTRODUCED
CLAUSE (4) IN ARTICLE 15 TO ALLOW FOR SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR
SOCIALLY AND EDUCATIONALLY BACKWARD CLASSES.
2 M.R. BALAJI CASE THE COURT HELD THAT THE CLASSIFICATION OF 'BACKWARD CLASSES'
(1963) BASED SOLELY ON CASTE IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER ARTICLE 15(4).

THIS CASE ALSO SET A CAP OF 50% ON RESERVATIONS, EMPHASIZING
THAT EFFICIENCY OF ADMINISTRATION SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED.
3 N.M. THOMAS CASE THE COURT HELD THAT RESERVATIONS FOR SOCIALLY AND
(1976) EDUCATIONALLY BACKWARD CLASSES UNDER ARTICLE 15(4) ARE NOT
DISCRIMINATORY AND DO NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 15(1). IT BROADENED
THE UNDERSTANDING OF BACKWARD CLASSES BEYOND JUST CASTE.
4 INDRA SAWHNEY ALSO KNOWN AS THE MANDAL COMMISSION CASE, IT UPHELD THE 27%
CASE (1992) RESERVATION FOR OTHER BACKWARD CLASSES (OBCS) IN CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT JOBS, UNDER ARTICLE 16(4), WHICH WAS READ ALONG
WITH ARTICLE 15. THE COURT ALSO INTRODUCED THE CONCEPT OF
'CREAMY LAYER,' EXCLUDING THE MORE AFFLUENT MEMBERS OF OBCS
FROM AVAILING RESERVATIONS.
5 ASHOKA KUMAR THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CENTRAL
THAKUR V. UNION EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (RESERVATION IN ADMISSION) ACT, 2006,
OF INDIA (2008) PROVIDING FOR 27% RESERVATION FOR OBCS IN EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS, SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE CREAMY LAYER.
6 AIR INDIA V. THE SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN THE AIR INDIA REGULATION THAT
NARGESH MEERZA PROVIDED FOR THE TERMINATION OF THE SERVICE OF AN AIR HOSTESS
(1981) ON HER FIRST PREGNANCY, RULING IT AS ARBITRARY AND VIOLATIVE OF
ARTICLE 15.
7 ANUJ GARG V. THIS CASE STRUCK DOWN A SECTION OF THE PUNJAB EXCISE ACT THAT
UNION OF INDIA PROHIBITED WOMEN FROM BEING EMPLOYED IN PREMISES WHERE
(2008) LIQUOR OR OTHER INTOXICATING DRUGS WERE CONSUMED BY THE
PUBLIC. THE COURT HELD THAT THIS WAS DISCRIMINATORY AND
STEREOTYPICAL, THUS VIOLATING ARTICLE 15.
8 NAVTEJ SINGH THE COURT DECRIMINALIZED CONSENSUAL HOMOSEXUAL ACTS BY

JOHAR CASE (2018) STRIKING DOWN PARTS OF SECTION 377 OF THE IPC. THIS JUDGMENT
WAS SIGNIFICANT FOR INTERPRETING ARTICLE 15'S PROHIBITION OF
DISCRIMINATION TO INCLUDE SEXUAL ORIENTATION, THUS ENHANCING
THE SCOPE OF THE ARTICLE.

ARTICLE 16 - EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY IN PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT
1 N.M. THOMAS CASE THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF KERALA'S RULE WHICH
(1976) EXEMPTED SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE CANDIDATES
FROM PASSING A DEPARTMENTAL TEST FOR PROMOTIONS. THE COURT
INTERPRETED ARTICLE 16(4) AS AN ENABLING PROVISION, ALLOWING
THE STATE TO MAKE RESERVATIONS IN PROMOTIONS FOR BACKWARD
CLASSES.
2 K.C. VASANTH THE COURT HELD THAT BACKWARDNESS FOR THE PURPOSES OF
KUMAR CASE RESERVATION SHOULD NOT BE BASED SOLELY ON CASTE AND THAT
(1985) ECONOMIC CRITERIA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. IT EMPHASIZED A
MORE COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH FOR IDENTIFYING BACKWARDNESS.
3 INDRA SAWHNEY ALSO KNOWN AS THE MANDAL COMMISSION CASE, THIS LANDMARK
CASE (1992) JUDGMENT UPHELD THE 27% RESERVATION FOR OTHER BACKWARD
CLASSES (OBCS) IN CENTRAL GOVERNMENT JOBS. THE COURT RULED
THAT ARTICLE 16(4) IS NOT JUST AN ENABLING PROVISION BUT A
FACET OF EQUALITY. IT ALSO INTRODUCED THE CONCEPT OF 'CREAMY
LAYER' WITHIN OBCS.
4 RITESH R. SAH THE COURT HELD THAT RESERVATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 16(4) ARE NOT
CASE (1996) A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT BUT ONLY A DISCRETIONARY POWER VESTED
IN THE STATE AND SUCH RESERVATIONS SHOULD NOT UNDERMINE THE
MAINTENANCE OF EFFICIENCY IN ADMINISTRATION.
5 E.V. CHINNAIAH THIS LANDMARK JUDGMENT HELD THAT ONLY PARLIAMENT, AND NOT
CASE (2004) STATE LEGISLATURES, HAS THE POWER TO MAKE ANY CHANGES IN THE
LISTS OF SCS AND STS. THE COURT RULED THAT ANY SUB-
CLASSIFICATION WOULD VIOLATE ARTICLE 341 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
6 M. NAGARAJ CASE THIS CASE UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF THE 77TH, 81ST, 82ND, AND 85TH
(2006) AMENDMENTS BUT STIPULATED THAT THE STATE HAS TO SHOW THE
EXISTENCE OF BACKWARDNESS, INADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION,
AND MAINTENANCE OF OVERALL ADMINISTRATIVE EFFICIENCY FOR
RESERVATIONS IN PROMOTIONS.
7 RAJEEV KUMAR ESTABLISHED THAT ALL PUBLIC SECTOR POSTS SHOULD BE

GUPTA CASE (2016) APPORTIONED FOR DIFFERENTLY-ABLED PERSONS, REINFORCING NON-
DISCRIMINATION AND EQUALITY IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT.

8 JARNAIL SINGH V. THE SUPREME COURT REITERATED THE NAGARAJ JUDGMENT'S
LACHHMI NARAIN STIPULATION THAT STATES DO NOT NEED TO COLLECT QUANTIFIABLE
GUPTA CASE (2018) DATA ON BACKWARDNESS FOR SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED
TRIBES WHEN MAKING RESERVATIONS IN PROMOTIONS.
9 ASHOKA KUMAR THE COURT HELD THAT 'CREAMY LAYER' EXCLUSION PRINCIPLE IS
THAKUR CASE APPLICABLE TO OBCS, AND STATES MUST ENSURE THAT THE MORE
(2007) ADVANCED SECTIONS OF BACKWARD CLASSES (I.E., THE CREAMY
LAYER) ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE BENEFITS OF RESERVATION.
10 B.K. PAVITRA CASE UPHELD THE KARNATAKA LAW PROVIDING CONSEQUENTIAL SENIORITY
(2019) TO SC/ST GOVERNMENT SERVANTS PROMOTED UNDER RESERVATION
POLICY, REVERSING A PREVIOUS DECISION THAT STRUCK DOWN A
SIMILAR PROVISION.
11 DAVINDER SINGH OVERTURNED THE E.V. CHINNAIAH VERDICT, ALLOWING STATES TO

CASE (2020) MAKE SUB-CLASSIFICATIONS WITHIN THE SCS AND STS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF GRANTING QUOTAS IN GOVERNMENT JOBS AND
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.
12 MUKESH KUMAR RULED THAT STATES ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE RESERVATIONS
CASE (2020) IN PROMOTIONS FOR SC/ST EMPLOYEES, STATING THERE IS NO
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO CLAIM SUCH RESERVATIONS.
ARTICLE 17 - ABOLITION OF UNTOUCHABILITY

1 JANKI PRASAD THE COURT DEALT WITH THE RIGHTS OF DALITS AND OTHER LOWER
PARIMOO CASE (1973) CASTES AND DISCUSSED THE ABOLITION OF "UNTOUCHABILITY" IN
THE CONTEXT OF IMPROVING THE CONDITIONS OF HISTORICALLY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES.
2 PEOPLE’S UNION FOR THIS CASE DIDN'T DIRECTLY DEAL WITH ARTICLE 17 BUT ADDRESSED
DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS THE ISSUE OF BONDED LABOUR. THE COURT'S JUDGMENT
V. UNION OF INDIA INDIRECTLY TOUCHED UPON THE ESSENCE OF ARTICLE 17 BY
(1982) HIGHLIGHTING THE PLIGHT OF WORKERS SUBJECTED TO INHUMAN
WORKING CONDITIONS AKIN TO UNTOUCHABILITY.

ARTICLE 18 - ABOLITION OF TITLES
1 BALAJI RAGHAVAN THIS CASE CHALLENGED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF NATIONAL

CASE (1996) AWARDS LIKE PADMA VIBHUSHAN, PADMA BHUSHAN, AND PADMA
SHRI. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THESE AWARDS DO NOT
VIOLATE ARTICLE 18 AS THEY ARE NOT TITLES BUT MERE
DECORATIONS AND CANNOT BE USED AS PREFIXES OR SUFFIXES TO
NAMES. THE COURT EMPHASIZED THAT THESE AWARDS ARE
DIFFERENT FROM TITLES OF NOBILITY AND DO NOT CONFER ANY
SPECIAL STATUS.
2 K.T. MOOPIL NAIR THE COURT, IN THIS CASE, REITERATED THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN
CASE (2010) IN THE BALAJI RAGHAVAN CASE ABOUT NATIONAL AWARDS. IT
FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT THESE AWARDS DO NOT AMOUNT TO
'TITLES' WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 18 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
3 COMMON CAUSE, A IN THIS CASE, A PIL WAS FILED SEEKING THE STRIPPING OF PADMA
REGISTERED SOCIETY AWARDS FROM RECIPIENTS WHO HAD ALLEGEDLY MISUSED THEM.
V. UNION OF INDIA THE COURT REFERRED TO THE BALAJI RAGHAVAN JUDGMENT,
(2015) REITERATING THAT THESE AWARDS DO NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 18 AND
ARE NOT 'TITLES' AS PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION.
ARTICLE 19 - FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION AND

OTHERS
1 DR. RAM MANOHAR THIS CASE WAS PIVOTAL IN INTERPRETING THE SCOPE OF
LOHIA CASE (1960) PERMISSIBLE RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH
AND EXPRESSION UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE CONSTITUTION.
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIA WAS ARRESTED FOR SPEAKING AGAINST A
GOVERNMENT POLICY, AND THE SUPREME COURT HAD TO DECIDE
WHETHER HIS ARREST UNDER THE BIHAR MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC
ORDER ACT WAS JUSTIFIED. THE COURT HELD THAT THE DETENTION
WAS NOT IN THE INTERESTS OF 'PUBLIC ORDER', DISTINGUISHING
BETWEEN 'LAW AND ORDER' AND 'PUBLIC ORDER'. THIS JUDGMENT
WAS CRUCIAL IN DEFINING THE LIMITS OF STATE POWER IN CURBING
FREE SPEECH AND ESTABLISHED IMPORTANT PRECEDENTS FOR
INTERPRETING THE EXTENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.

2 ROMESH THAPAR THIS CASE ESTABLISHED THE PRECEDENT FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
CASE (1950) UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A). THE COURT STRUCK DOWN A MADRAS
GOVERNMENT LAW BANNING THE ENTRY AND CIRCULATION OF A
COMMUNIST WEEKLY, HOLDING THAT FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
EXPRESSION INCLUDES FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.
3 MANEKA GANDHI EXPANDED THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 19 TO INCLUDE THE

CASE (1978) RIGHT TO TRAVEL ABROAD, THEREBY BROADENING THE SCOPE OF
PERSONAL LIBERTIES AND FREEDOMS GUARANTEED BY THE
CONSTITUTION. THE COURT HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO LIFE UNDER
ARTICLE 21 IS NOT MERELY PHYSICAL EXISTENCE BUT INCLUDES
WITHIN ITS AMBIT THE RIGHT TO LIVE WITH HUMAN DIGNITY.
4 SHREYA SINGHAL THE SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN SECTION 66A OF THE
CASE (2015) INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000, HOLDING IT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON THE GROUNDS OF BEING VAGUE AND
EXCESSIVELY BROAD. THE COURT PROTECTED ONLINE SPEECH BY
UPHOLDING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A).
5 PUCL V. UNION OF DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF TELEPHONE TAPPING UNDER THE
INDIA CASE (2003) TELEGRAPH ACT. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT ANY INVASION OF
PRIVACY MUST BE JUSTIFIED BY A PUBLIC EMERGENCY OR IN THE
INTEREST OF PUBLIC SAFETY.
6 ASSOCIATION FOR THE COURT UPHELD THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO KNOW THE
DEMOCRATIC ANTECEDENTS OF THEIR CANDIDATES IN ELECTIONS, WHICH IS
REFORMS CASE FUNDAMENTAL AND IMPLICIT IN THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH
(2002) AND EXPRESSION.
7 K.A. ABBAS CASE THIS CASE DEALT WITH PRE-CENSORSHIP OF FILMS. THE SUPREME
(1971) COURT HELD THAT MOVIE CENSORSHIP IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID
BUT MUST BE REASONABLE AND WITHIN THE GROUNDS SPECIFIED
UNDER ARTICLE 19(2).
8 GOBIND V. STATE OF THE CASE DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF SURVEILLANCE. THE COURT HELD
MADHYA PRADESH THAT THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS NOT ABSOLUTE AND ANY INVASION OF
CASE (1975) PRIVACY MUST BE JUSTIFIED BY A COMPELLING STATE INTEREST.
9 M.S.M. SHARMA ALSO KNOWN AS THE SEARCHLIGHT CASE, IT DEALT WITH THE
CASE (1959) QUESTION OF WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE BIHAR
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY COULD BE PUBLISHED. THE COURT HELD THAT
THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A) IS SUBJECT TO THE

PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 194(3) AND, THEREFORE, THE PRIVILEGE OF
THE LEGISLATURE PREVAILS OVER THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.
ARTICLE 20 - PROTECTION IN RESPECT OF CONVICTION FOR

OFFENCES
1 KEDAR THIS CASE DEALT WITH THE RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF PENAL LAWS. THE
NATH CASE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT A LAW THAT IS MADE TO HAVE A RETROSPECTIVE
(1953) EFFECT MUST BE EXPLICIT ABOUT IT AND CANNOT BE APPLIED TO CONVICT AN
INDIVIDUAL FOR ACTS THAT WERE NOT OFFENSES AT THE TIME THEY WERE
COMMITTED, UPHOLDING THE PROTECTION AGAINST EX POST FACTO LAWS IN
ARTICLE 20(1).
2 M.P. THIS LANDMARK JUDGMENT IS SIGNIFICANT FOR ITS INTERPRETATION OF THE

SHARMA RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 20(3). THE COURT HELD
CASE THAT THE PROVISION OFFERS PROTECTION AGAINST COMPULSION TO BE A
(1954) WITNESS AGAINST ONESELF, AND IT EXTENDS TO BOTH ORAL AND
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.
3 RUSY THE COURT HELD THAT PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAWS DO NOT FALL UNDER THE
MISTRY AMBIT OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY AS PROVIDED UNDER ARTICLE 20(2), AS THEY ARE
CASE NOT A PUNISHMENT FOR AN OFFENSE.
(1960)
4 RATTAN LAL IN THIS CASE, THE SUPREME COURT ELABORATED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF
CASE DOUBLE JEOPARDY, STATING THAT A PERSON CANNOT BE PROSECUTED AND
(1965) PUNISHED FOR THE SAME OFFENSE MORE THAN ONCE, AS PER ARTICLE 20(2).
THE CASE REINFORCED THE CONCEPT OF 'AUTREFOIS CONVICT' OR 'FORMERLY
CONVICTED', EMPHASIZING THE PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
5 SELVI CASE THE SUPREME COURT, IN THIS CASE, DEALT WITH THE USE OF NARCO-
(2010) ANALYSIS, POLYGRAPH TESTS, AND BRAIN MAPPING IN INVESTIGATIONS. IT
HELD THAT INVOLUNTARY ADMINISTRATION OF THESE TECHNIQUES VIOLATES
THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 20(3) AND THE
RIGHT TO PRIVACY.

ARTICLE 21 - PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY
1 A.K. GOPALAN CASE INITIALLY, THE SUPREME COURT TOOK A NARROW VIEW OF
(1950) PERSONAL LIBERTY, STATING THAT DETENTION UNDER A LAW WAS
NOT VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 21 IF THE LAW WAS VALID, EVEN IF
THE LAW WAS HARSH OR UNFAIR.
2 MANEKA GANDHI CASE EXPANDED THE INTERPRETATION OF 'PERSONAL LIBERTY' UNDER

(1978) ARTICLE 21 TO INCLUDE A VARIETY OF RIGHTS THAT MAKE LIFE
MEANINGFUL, NOT JUST MERE ANIMAL EXISTENCE. ESTABLISHED
THAT ANY LAW DEPRIVING A PERSON OF PERSONAL LIBERTY MUST
BE JUST, FAIR, AND REASONABLE.
3 SUNIL BATRA CASE THE COURT HELD THAT HANDCUFFING PRISONERS WITHOUT
(1978) REASONABLE CAUSE AND SOLITARY CONFINEMENT ARE
VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 21. SIGNIFICANTLY EXPANDED THE
RIGHTS OF PRISONERS UNDER THE 'RIGHT TO LIFE' PROVISION.
4 HUSSAINARA KHATOON THE COURT HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL IS AN
CASE (1980) ESSENTIAL PART OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIFE AND
LIBERTY. HIGHLIGHTED THE PLIGHT OF UNDERTRIAL PRISONERS
LANGUISHING IN JAILS FOR LONGER THAN THE MAXIMUM TERM
THEY WOULD HAVE SERVED IF CONVICTED.
5 FRANCIS CORALIE HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO LIFE IS NOT MERELY CONFINED TO
MULLIN CASE (1981) PHYSICAL EXISTENCE BUT INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO LIVE WITH
HUMAN DIGNITY, AND THEREFORE IT INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO
BASIC NECESSITIES AND FACILITIES.
6 BANDHUA MUKTI THE SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZED THAT THE RIGHT TO LIVE WITH
MORCHA CASE (1984) HUMAN DIGNITY UNDER ARTICLE 21 INCLUDES THE PROTECTION
OF HEALTH AND STRENGTH OF WORKERS, A DECENT STANDARD
OF LIVING, AND PROTECTION FROM EXPLOITATION.
7 OLGA TELLIS CASE HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF
(1985) THE RIGHT TO LIFE. EVICTIONS OF PAVEMENT DWELLERS WERE
ALLOWED ONLY IF DUE PROCESS WAS FOLLOWED AND
ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATIONS WERE PROVIDED.
8 M.C. MEHTA CASE KNOWN AS THE OLEUM GAS LEAK CASE, IT EVOLVED THE CONCEPT
(1987) OF 'ABSOLUTE LIABILITY' FOR HARM CAUSED BY HAZARDOUS

INDUSTRIES, LINKING IT TO THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL
LIBERTY.
9 PARMANAND KATARA V. HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO TIMELY MEDICAL TREATMENT IN CASE
UNION OF INDIA (1989) OF AN EMERGENCY IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 21.
10 UNNI KRISHNAN J.P. RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION AS IMPLICIT IN THE

CASE (1993) RIGHT TO LIFE FOR CHILDREN UP TO THE AGE OF 14 YEARS,
WHICH WAS LATER LEGISLATED THROUGH THE RIGHT TO
EDUCATION ACT.
11 NILABATI BEHERA CASE REINFORCED THAT THE RIGHT TO COMPENSATION FOR CUSTODIAL
(1993) DEATH OR TORTURE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDY FOR
VIOLATION OF RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY ARTICLE 21.
12 PEOPLE'S UNION FOR THE COURT HELD THAT TELEPHONE TAPPING INFRINGES THE
CIVIL LIBERTIES V. RIGHT TO PRIVACY UNDER ARTICLE 21 UNLESS IT IS PERMITTED
UNION OF INDIA CASE UNDER THE PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW.
(1997)
13 D.K. BASU CASE (1997) LAID DOWN SPECIFIC GUIDELINES TO PREVENT CUSTODIAL ABUSE
AND TORTURE, REITERATING THAT THE RIGHT TO LIFE INCLUDES
THE RIGHT TO LIVE WITH HUMAN DIGNITY.
14 VISHAKA CASE (1997) DEFINED SEXUAL HARASSMENT AT THE WORKPLACE AND ISSUED
GUIDELINES TO PROTECT WOMEN FROM SEXUAL HARASSMENT,
SEEN AS A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLES
14, 15, AND 21.
15 R.D. UPADHYAY CASE THE SUPREME COURT ISSUED GUIDELINES FOR THE PROTECTION
(2006) AND WELFARE OF CHILDREN OF WOMEN PRISONERS,
ACKNOWLEDGING THEIR RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 21.
16 ARUNA RAMACHANDRA ALLOWED PASSIVE EUTHANASIA UNDER EXCEPTIONAL

SHANBAUG CASE (2011) CIRCUMSTANCES, THEREBY RECOGNIZING THE RIGHT TO DIE
WITH DIGNITY AS PART OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE UNDER ARTICLE 21.
17 SHABNAM CASE (2015) HELD THAT DEATH ROW CONVICTS ARE ENTITLED TO BE
INFORMED IN ADVANCE ABOUT THE DATE OF EXECUTION AND THE
REJECTION OF MERCY PETITIONS, AS PART OF THEIR RIGHTS
UNDER ARTICLE 21.

18 K.S. PUTTASWAMY CASE A LANDMARK CASE WHERE THE SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY
(2017) HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS PROTECTED UNDER ARTICLE
21 AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION. IT IS A
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT INTRINSIC TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY.
19 COMMON CAUSE CASE RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT TO DIE WITH DIGNITY AS A

(2018) FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, LEGALIZING PASSIVE EUTHANASIA AND
LIVING WILLS UNDER STRICT GUIDELINES.
20 NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR DECRIMINALIZED CONSENSUAL HOMOSEXUAL ACTS BY STRIKING

CASE (2018) DOWN PARTS OF SECTION 377 OF THE IPC, THEREBY PROTECTING
THE DIGNITY AND PRIVACY INHERENT IN ARTICLE 21.
ARTICLE 22 - PROTECTION AGAINST ARREST AND DETENTION

IN CERTAIN CASES
1 AJAIB SINGH THIS EARLY CASE INTERPRETED ARTICLE 22 IN THE CONTEXT OF

CASE (1953) PREVENTIVE DETENTION, DISCUSSING THE BALANCE BETWEEN
INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES AND THE SECURITY OF THE STATE.
2 A.K. GOPALAN THIS WAS ONE OF THE EARLIEST CASES INTERPRETING ARTICLE 22. THE
CASE (1950) SUPREME COURT TOOK A NARROW VIEW, HOLDING THAT DETENTION
UNDER A VALID LAW IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 22, EVEN IF THE LAW
IS HARSH OR UNFAIR. HOWEVER, THIS VIEW WAS LATER RECONSIDERED
IN SUBSEQUENT CASES.
3 D.K. BASU CASE THIS LANDMARK JUDGMENT LAID DOWN SPECIFIC GUIDELINES TO
(1997) PREVENT TORTURE AND ABUSE IN POLICE CUSTODY. IT SIGNIFICANTLY
EXPANDED THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 22, PARTICULARLY
REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUALS IN POLICE CUSTODY.
4 ADM JABALPUR V. ALSO KNOWN AS THE HABEAS CORPUS CASE, THIS CONTROVERSIAL
SHIVKANT JUDGMENT HELD THAT DURING THE EMERGENCY, A PERSON'S RIGHT TO
SHUKLA CASE NOT BE UNLAWFULLY DETAINED CAN BE SUSPENDED. THIS WAS WIDELY
(1976) CRITICIZED AND IS SEEN AS A LOW POINT IN THE HISTORY OF THE
INDIAN JUDICIARY.
5 KARTAR SINGH THE SUPREME COURT EXAMINED THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE
CASE (1994) TERRORIST AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1987,
DISCUSSING THE BALANCE BETWEEN THE NEED FOR SPECIAL MEASURES

TO COMBAT TERRORISM AND THE PROTECTIONS GRANTED UNDER ARTICLE
22.
6 SANJAY DUTT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TERRORIST AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES

CASE (1994) (PREVENTION) ACT (TADA), THE COURT EXAMINED THE RIGHTS OF
INDIVIDUALS UNDER ARTICLE 22, ESPECIALLY IN CASES OF STRINGENT
ANTI-TERROR LAWS.
ARTICLE 23 - PROHIBITION OF TRAFFIC IN HUMAN BEINGS

AND FORCED LABOUR
1 PEOPLE'S UNION FOR THIS LANDMARK CASE EXPANDED THE INTERPRETATION OF

DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS 'FORCED LABOUR' UNDER ARTICLE 23. THE SUPREME COURT HELD
(PUDR) V. UNION OF THAT ANY FORM OF FORCED LABOUR, INCLUDING WORKING FOR
INDIA CASE (1982) LESS THAN THE MINIMUM WAGE, IS A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 23.
2 BANDHUA MUKTI THE CASE BROUGHT THE PLIGHT OF BONDED LABOURERS TO

MORCHA CASE (1984) LIGHT. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE PRACTICE OF
BONDED LABOUR IS A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 23 AND DIRECTED
THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE STEPS TO ERADICATE IT.
3 SANJIT ROY CASE (1983) IN THIS CASE, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT EMPLOYING
INDIVIDUALS ON FAMINE RELIEF WORK AT LESS THAN THE
MINIMUM WAGE IS A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 23. THIS JUDGMENT
EMPHASIZED THAT MINIMUM WAGE IS A FACET OF ENSURING
DIGNITY AND ABOLISHING FORCED LABOUR.
4 GAURAV JAIN CASE THIS CASE FOCUSED ON THE PLIGHT OF CHILDREN OF SEX
(1997) WORKERS. THE SUPREME COURT, WHILE NOT DIRECTLY DEALING
WITH ARTICLE 23, LINKED THE ISSUE WITH THE NEED TO PROTECT
CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND TRAFFICKING.
5 NEERAJA CHAUDHARY THE COURT HELD THAT THE PRACTICE OF BONDED LABOUR, IN ANY
CASE (1984) FORM, IS A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 23, AND THE STATE IS UNDER A
CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST SUCH
EXPLOITATION.
6 VISHAL JEET CASE (1990) THE SUPREME COURT ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF CHILD
PROSTITUTION AND SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN, URGING
THE CENTRAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS TO FORMULATE

MEASURES FOR THE REHABILITATION OF THE VICTIMS OF
TRAFFICKING AND PROSTITUTION, IN LINE WITH ARTICLE 23.
7 APPA BALU INGALE CASE THE SUPREME COURT, IN THIS CASE, INTERPRETED ARTICLE 23 TO
(1993) IMPLY THAT THE STATE IS OBLIGATED TO TAKE MEASURES TO
STOP THE TRAFFICKING IN WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND OTHER
SIMILAR FORMS OF FORCED LABOUR.
8 DELHI DOMESTIC THE SUPREME COURT ACKNOWLEDGED THE PLIGHT OF DOMESTIC

WORKING WOMEN'S WORKERS AND LAID DOWN GUIDELINES FOR THEIR PROTECTION,
FORUM CASE (1995) CONSIDERING IT UNDER THE AMBIT OF FORCED LABOUR AND
EXPLOITATION PROHIBITED BY ARTICLE 23.
ARTICLE 24 - PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN IN

FACTORIES, ETC.
1 M.C. MEHTA CASE THIS CASE DEALT SPECIFICALLY WITH CHILD LABOUR IN MATCH
(CHILD LABOUR IN FACTORIES IN SIVAKASI. THE SUPREME COURT ISSUED DIRECTIONS
MATCH FACTORIES, TO THE GOVERNMENT TO ENSURE THAT CHILDREN ARE NOT
1991) EMPLOYED IN HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIES AND TO PROVIDE
ALTERNATIVES LIKE EDUCATION.
2 M.C. MEHTA CASE KNOWN AS THE CHILD LABOUR (PROHIBITION AND REGULATION)
(1996) ACT CASE, THE SUPREME COURT ISSUED DIRECTIONS FOR THE
PROHIBITION OF CHILD LABOUR IN HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIES. THE
COURT EMPHASIZED THE NEED TO PROVIDE EDUCATION TO
CHILDREN WHO WERE WITHDRAWN FROM HAZARDOUS
OCCUPATIONS.
3 M.C. MEHTA CASE THE SUPREME COURT BANNED THE EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN IN
(CHILD LABOUR IN CIRCUSES, DIRECTING THE GOVERNMENT TO RESCUE AND
CIRCUS, 2000) REHABILITATE THEM. THIS JUDGMENT WAS SIGNIFICANT IN THE
CONTEXT OF ARTICLE 24, BROADENING THE SCOPE OF WHAT
CONSTITUTES HAZARDOUS EMPLOYMENT.
4 PEOPLE'S UNION FOR IN THIS CASE, WHILE DEALING WITH THE RIGHTS OF
DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS CONSTRUCTION WORKERS IN DELHI, THE SUPREME COURT
(PUDR) V. UNION OF TOUCHED UPON THE EXPLOITATION OF CHILD LABOUR, RELATING IT
INDIA (1982) TO ARTICLE 24. THE COURT OBSERVED THAT EMPLOYMENT OF

CHILDREN IN CONSTRUCTION WORK IS A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE
24.
5 BANDHUA MUKTI WHILE PRIMARILY ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF BONDED LABOUR,

MORCHA V. UNION OF THE SUPREME COURT ALSO CONSIDERED THE EMPLOYMENT OF
INDIA (1984) CHILDREN IN HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIES AS A VIOLATION OF
ARTICLE 24. THE CASE LED TO THE IDENTIFICATION AND RELEASE
OF BONDED LABOURERS, INCLUDING CHILDREN.
6 BACHPAN BACHAO IN THIS CASE, THE SUPREME COURT ISSUED DIRECTIONS FOR THE
ANDOLAN V. UNION OF PREVENTION OF CHILD TRAFFICKING AND CHILD LABOUR. THE
INDIA (2011) COURT EMPHASIZED THE NEED FOR REHABILITATION AND
EDUCATION OF CHILDREN RESCUED FROM LABOUR.
ARTICLE 25
1 S.R. BOMMAI CASE (1994) THIS CASE IS SIGNIFICANT FOR ITS ANALYSIS OF SECULARISM
AS A BASIC FEATURE OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE SUPREME
COURT HELD THAT SECULARISM IS PART OF THE BASIC
STRUCTURE AND THAT A STATE GOVERNMENT PURSUING ANTI-
SECULAR POLITICS IS LIABLE TO ACTION UNDER ARTICLE 356.
2 INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS KNOWN AS THE SABARIMALA CASE, THE SUPREME COURT
ASSOCIATION CASE (2018) ALLOWED WOMEN OF ALL AGES TO ENTER THE SABARIMALA
TEMPLE, HOLDING THAT THE PRACTICE OF BARRING WOMEN OF
A CERTAIN AGE GROUP IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS
PRACTICE AND VIOLATES WOMEN'S RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLES
14, 15, AND 25.
3 BIJOE EMMANUEL CASE THE COURT UPHELD THE RIGHT OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES TO
(1986) NOT SING THE NATIONAL ANTHEM, OBSERVING THAT THEIR
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO RELIGION UNDER ARTICLE 25 IS
MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN ANY PATRIOTIC OBLIGATION.
4 SRI SHIRUR MUTT CASE A LANDMARK JUDGMENT THAT DEFINED 'RELIGION' AND HELD
(1954) THAT RELIGIOUS PRACTICES ARE PROTECTED UNDER ARTICLE
25. THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S
REGULATORY POWER IS LIMITED TO SECULAR ACTIVITIES
ASSOCIATED WITH RELIGIOUS PRACTICE.

5 ACHARYA THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE ANANDA MARGA'S
JAGADISHWARANANDA TANDAVA DANCE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AN ESSENTIAL
AVADHUTA CASE (2004) RELIGIOUS PRACTICE AND THEREFORE COULD BE RESTRICTED
ON GROUNDS OF PUBLIC ORDER UNDER ARTICLE 25.
6 MOHD. HANIF QUARESHI THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE TOTAL BAN ON COW
CASE (1958) SLAUGHTER IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THAT THE
STATES HAVE THE POWER TO REGULATE ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES
ASSOCIATED WITH RELIGIOUS PRACTICES UNDER ARTICLE 25.
7 ARUNA ROY CASE (2002) WHILE THE CASE WAS MORE ABOUT THE CONTENT OF SCHOOL
TEXTBOOKS, IT TOUCHED UPON ISSUES RELATED TO SECULAR
EDUCATION AND THE RIGHT TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM UNDER
ARTICLES 25 AND 28.
8 ISMAIL FARUQUI CASE IN THIS CASE, RELATED TO THE AYODHYA DISPUTE, THE
(1994) SUPREME COURT OBSERVED THAT A MOSQUE IS NOT AN
ESSENTIAL PART OF ISLAM AND NAMAZ CAN BE OFFERED
ANYWHERE, THUS PRAYERS IN A MOSQUE CANNOT BE
PROTECTED UNDER ARTICLE 25.
9 CHURCH OF GOD CASE THE COURT HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION
(2000) DOES NOT INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO CAUSE PUBLIC NUISANCE
OR HEALTH HAZARD. IT UPHELD THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED
ON THE USE OF LOUDSPEAKERS BY A CHURCH.
10 RATILAL PANACHAND THE COURT HELD THAT LAWS REGULATING ECONOMIC,

GANDHI CASE (1954) FINANCIAL, POLITICAL, OR OTHER SECULAR ACTIVITIES
ASSOCIATED WITH RELIGIOUS PRACTICES MAY NOT INFRINGE
UPON THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM GRANTED UNDER ARTICLE 25.
11 REV. STAINISLAUS CASE THE COURT UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANTI-

(1977) CONVERSION LAWS IN MADHYA PRADESH AND ODISHA,
HOLDING THAT THE RIGHT TO PROPAGATE ONE'S RELIGION
DOES NOT INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO CONVERT ANOTHER
INDIVIDUAL.
12 SWAMI ACHYUTANAND THIS JUDGMENT DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF JALLIKATTU (BULL-
TIRTH CASE (2016) TAMING SPORT) AND HELD THAT THE PRACTICE IS NOT AN
ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICE PROTECTED UNDER ARTICLE
25.

ARTICLE 26
1 SRI SHIRUR MUTT CASE THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT A RELIGIOUS
(1954) DENOMINATION HAS THE RIGHT TO MANAGE ITS OWN
AFFAIRS IN MATTERS OF RELIGION, WHICH INCLUDES THE
RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT RITES AND CEREMONIES ARE
ESSENTIAL ACCORDING TO THE TENETS OF THE RELIGION
THEY HOLD. THIS CASE WAS SIGNIFICANT IN DEFINING
'RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION' UNDER ARTICLE 26.
2 S.P. MITTAL CASE (1983) THE SUPREME COURT DEALT WITH THE QUESTION OF WHAT
CONSTITUTES A 'RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION' WITHIN ARTICLE
26. THE COURT HELD THAT THE FOLLOWERS OF AUROVILLE DO
NOT CONSTITUTE A RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION AS THEY DO
NOT HAVE A COMMON FAITH AND ORGANIZATION.
3 RATILAL PANACHAND GANDHI THIS CASE EXPANDED ON THE RIGHTS OF RELIGIOUS

V. THE STATE OF BOMBAY DENOMINATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 26. THE COURT HELD THAT
(1954) THE STATE'S LAW, WHICH AIMED TO REGULATE THE
MANAGEMENT OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES BELONGING TO A
RELIGIOUS TRUST, WAS VALID AS IT DID NOT INFRINGE UPON
THE RELIGIOUS PRACTICES OF THE JAIN COMMUNITY.
4 SRI ADI VISHESHWARA OF THIS CASE CONCERNED THE REGULATION OF A HINDU TEMPLE
KASHI VISHWANATH TEMPLE BY THE UTTAR PRADESH GOVERNMENT. THE SUPREME COURT
CASE (1997) HELD THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S MANAGEMENT OF THE
TEMPLE'S PROPERTY IS A SECULAR ACT AND DOES NOT
INFRINGE UPON RELIGIOUS PRACTICES.
5 ACHARYA THE COURT HELD THAT THE ANANDA MARGA SECT DOES NOT
JAGADISHWARANANDA CONSTITUTE A RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION WITHIN ARTICLE
AVADHUTA CASE (2004) 26, AND ITS TANDAVA DANCE CAN BE RESTRICTED ON
GROUNDS OF PUBLIC ORDER.
6 N. ADITHAYAN V. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE APPOINTMENT OF

TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM PRIESTS BASED ON CASTE IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS
BOARD (2002) PRACTICE AND CAN BE REGULATED BY THE STATE.

ARTICLE 27
1 SRI SHIRUR MUTT THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT A TAX SPECIFICALLY LEVIED ON
CASE (1954) RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS COULD VIOLATE ARTICLE 27 IF IT WAS USED
FOR PURPOSES THAT PROMOTE OR MAINTAIN ANY PARTICULAR
RELIGION.
2 RATILAL PANACHAND IN THIS CASE, THE SUPREME COURT CONSIDERED THE VALIDITY OF A
GANDHI CASE (1954) BOMBAY STATE LAW IMPOSING A TAX ON PILGRIMS ATTENDING A JAIN
TEMPLE. THE COURT HELD THAT SUCH A TAX DID NOT VIOLATE
ARTICLE 27 AS IT WAS NOT A TAX ON THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION BUT
RATHER A FEE FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES.
3 SRI JAGANNATH THIS CASE INVOLVED A CHALLENGE TO A STATE LAW THAT REGULATED
TEMPLE MANAGING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE JAGANNATH TEMPLE AND INCLUDED
COMMITTEE CASE PROVISIONS FOR THE COLLECTION OF CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
(1954) DEVOTEES. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT SUCH COLLECTIONS DID
NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 27, AS THEY WERE NOT TAXES BUT VOLUNTARY
CONTRIBUTIONS.
ARTICLE 28
1 D.A.V. COLLEGE THE SUPREME COURT DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF SIKHISM BEING TAUGHT
CASE (1971) IN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RUN BY ARYA SAMAJ. THE JUDGMENT
HIGHLIGHTED THE RIGHT OF RELIGIOUS AND LINGUISTIC MINORITIES TO
ESTABLISH AND ADMINISTER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, THUS
INDIRECTLY RELATING TO THE PRINCIPLES UNDER ARTICLE 28.
2 ARUNA ROY CASE THIS CASE CHALLENGED THE INTRODUCTION OF A COURSE ON "VALUE
(2002) EDUCATION" IN THE SCHOOL CURRICULUM, WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO
HAVE A RELIGIOUS CONNOTATION. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT
SECULARISM AND EQUALITY ARE BASIC FEATURES OF THE
CONSTITUTION. WHILE IT DID NOT DIRECTLY DEAL WITH ARTICLE 28,
THE JUDGMENT REINFORCED THE IMPORTANCE OF SECULAR EDUCATION
IN STATE-FUNDED INSTITUTIONS.

3 ISLAMIC ACADEMY THIS CASE ADDRESSED THE RIGHTS OF MINORITY EDUCATIONAL
OF EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN RELATION TO IMPARTING RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. THE
CASE (2003) JUDGMENT HAD IMPLICATIONS FOR ARTICLE 28 IN TERMS OF THE
BALANCE BETWEEN RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION AND SECULAR EDUCATION
IN MINORITY INSTITUTIONS.
4 P.A. INAMDAR THE CASE INVOLVED THE RIGHTS OF PRIVATE UNAIDED EDUCATIONAL
CASE (2005) INSTITUTIONS, INCLUDING THOSE ESTABLISHED BY RELIGIOUS GROUPS.
THE SUPREME COURT'S OBSERVATIONS WERE RELEVANT TO ARTICLE 28
AS THEY TOUCHED UPON THE AUTONOMY OF SUCH INSTITUTIONS IN
MATTERS OF RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION.
ARTICLES 29 & 30
1 BOMBAY EDUCATION THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT RELIGIOUS AND LINGUISTIC
SOCIETY CASE (1954) MINORITIES HAVE THE RIGHT TO ESTABLISH AND ADMINISTER
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS OF THEIR CHOICE UNDER ARTICLES
29 AND 30, AND THESE RIGHTS ARE NOT ABROGATED BY ARTICLE
29(2). THIS CASE ESTABLISHED THE FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES
FOR MINORITY RIGHTS IN EDUCATION.
2 KERALA EDUCATION THE SUPREME COURT, IN THIS ADVISORY OPINION, HIGHLIGHTED

BILL CASE (1957) THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES TO ESTABLISH AND ADMINISTER
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND SET OUT GUIDELINES FOR
REGULATION BY THE STATE, WHICH SHOULD RESPECT THE RIGHTS
UNDER ARTICLES 29 AND 30.
3 REV. SIDHAJBHAI THE COURT HELD THAT REGULATIONS AND CONDITIONS IMPOSED
SABHAI CASE (1963) BY THE STATE ON MINORITY INSTITUTIONS SHOULD NOT IMPINGE
UPON THE BASIC CHARACTER OF THE INSTITUTION AS A MINORITY
INSTITUTION.
4 S. AZEEZ BASHA CASE THE CASE INVOLVED A DISPUTE OVER THE ADMINISTRATION OF
(1968) THE ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY. THE COURT RULED THAT AMU
WAS NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE MUSLIMS OF INDIA BUT WAS SET
UP BY AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT, AND THUS IT COULD NOT ENJOY
THE STATUS OF A MINORITY INSTITUTION UNDER ARTICLE 29 AND
30.

5 D.A.V. COLLEGE CASE THE COURT HELD THAT THE ARYA SAMAJ, BEING A SECT OF
(1971) HINDUISM, CANNOT CLAIM TO BE A LINGUISTIC MINORITY, THUS
NOT ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION UNDER ARTICLE 29 AND 30.
THE JUDGMENT CLARIFIED THE INTERPRETATION OF WHO
CONSTITUTES A MINORITY UNDER THIS ARTICLE.
6 AHMEDABAD ST. THE COURT UPHELD THE AUTONOMY OF MINORITY EDUCATIONAL

XAVIER'S COLLEGE INSTITUTIONS IN THE MATTER OF ADMINISTRATION, EMPHASIZING
SOCIETY CASE (1974) THAT THE PRESERVATION OF THE MINORITY CHARACTER OF
INSTITUTIONS IS PROTECTED UNDER ARTICLE 29 AND 30.
7 ST. STEPHEN'S COLLEGE THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT MINORITY EDUCATIONAL
CASE (1992) INSTITUTIONS HAVE THE RIGHT TO A PREFERENTIAL RIGHT OF
ADMISSION OF STUDENTS OF THEIR COMMUNITY BUT THEY MUST
ADMIT A REASONABLE NUMBER OF NON-MINORITY STUDENTS. THIS
JUDGMENT BALANCED THE RIGHTS OF MINORITY INSTITUTIONS
WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION IN ARTICLE 29(2).
8 T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION A LANDMARK JUDGMENT THAT REDEFINED THE SCOPE OF THE
CASE (2002) RIGHTS OF MINORITIES UNDER ARTICLES 29 AND 30. THE COURT
HELD THAT MINORITY INSTITUTIONS HAVE THE RIGHT TO ADMIT
STUDENTS FROM THEIR OWN COMMUNITY IN A MANNER THEY
DEEM FIT, BUT THEY CANNOT COMPLETELY EXCLUDE STUDENTS
FROM OTHER COMMUNITIES.
9 JOHN VALLAMATTON IN THIS CASE, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT ARTICLE 30 DOES
CASE (2003) NOT PREVENT THE STATE FROM ENACTING A UNIFORM CIVIL CODE,
WHICH WOULD APPLY TO ALL, INCLUDING MINORITY EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS.
10 P.A. INAMDAR CASE THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT MINORITY EDUCATIONAL
(2005) INSTITUTIONS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE RESERVATION POLICY AS
IT WOULD VIOLATE THEIR RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 30.
11 SOCIETY FOR UN-AIDED THIS CASE DEALT WITH THE RIGHT OF CHILDREN TO FREE AND
PRIVATE SCHOOLS OF COMPULSORY EDUCATION ACT, 2009. THE SUPREME COURT HELD
RAJASTHAN CASE THAT THE ACT APPLIES TO MINORITY INSTITUTIONS BUT SHOULD
(2012) NOT INFRINGE UPON THEIR RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 30.

ARTICLE 32 - REMEDIES FOR ENFORCEMENT OF
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
1 ADM JABALPUR ALSO KNOWN AS THE HABEAS CORPUS CASE, THIS CONTROVERSIAL
V. SHIVKANT JUDGMENT DURING THE EMERGENCY HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO SEEK
SHUKLA (1976) ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS THROUGH ARTICLE 32 WAS
ITSELF SUSPENDED. THIS JUDGMENT WAS WIDELY CRITICIZED AND IS
CONSIDERED A DARK CHAPTER IN INDIAN JUDICIAL HISTORY.
2 A.K. GOPALAN V. THIS WAS ONE OF THE EARLIEST CASES THAT TESTED THE EXTENT OF
STATE OF PROTECTION OFFERED UNDER ARTICLE 32. THE COURT TOOK A NARROW
MADRAS (1950) VIEW ON PERSONAL LIBERTY BUT AFFIRMED ITS POWER TO ENFORCE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS DIRECTLY.
3 D.K. BASU V. A LANDMARK JUDGMENT IN THE AREA OF CUSTODIAL RIGHTS AND POLICE
STATE OF WEST ABUSE. THE SUPREME COURT ISSUED COMPREHENSIVE GUIDELINES TO
BENGAL (1997) PREVENT CUSTODIAL TORTURE, HIGHLIGHTING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF
ARTICLE 32 IN ADDRESSING VIOLATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
4 MANEKA GANDHI THIS JUDGMENT EXPANDED THE INTERPRETATION OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE
V. UNION OF AND PERSONAL LIBERTY UNDER ARTICLE 21 AND REINFORCED THE
INDIA (1978) SUPREME COURT'S POWER UNDER ARTICLE 32 TO ENFORCE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS IN A COMPREHENSIVE MANNER.
5 M.C. MEHTA V. KNOWN AS THE OLEUM GAS LEAK CASE, THIS WAS A SIGNIFICANT
UNION OF INDIA ENVIRONMENTAL CASE WHERE THE SUPREME COURT USED ARTICLE 32 TO
(1987) ADDRESS PUBLIC INTEREST AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, LAYING
DOWN THE PRINCIPLE OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY.
DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY

1 CHAMPAKAM THIS CASE WAS ONE OF THE FIRST TO ADDRESS THE CONFLICT
DORAIRAJAN CASE BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DPSPS. THE SUPREME COURT
(1951) HELD THAT IN THE EVENT OF ANY CONFLICT, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
WOULD PREVAIL OVER DPSPS. IT LED TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF
THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH INTRODUCED ARTICLE 31A AND ARTICLE
31B, PROVIDING A DEGREE OF IMMUNITY FOR LAWS TO IMPLEMENT
CERTAIN DPSPS.

2 GOLAK NATH CASE THIS CASE HELD THAT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS CANNOT BE AMENDED
(1967) FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DPSPS. HOWEVER, THIS POSITION
WAS OVERRULED BY THE KESAVANANDA BHARATI CASE.
2 KESAVANANDA A LANDMARK JUDGMENT THAT ESTABLISHED THE DOCTRINE OF THE

BHARATI CASE (1973) BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE SUPREME COURT
HELD THAT AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION CANNOT
DESTROY ITS BASIC STRUCTURE, WHICH INCLUDES THE BALANCE
BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DPSPS.
3 MINERVA MILLS CASE THE COURT HELD THAT THE HARMONY AND BALANCE BETWEEN
(1980) FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DPSPS ARE PART OF THE BASIC
STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE JUDGMENT STRUCK DOWN
CLAUSES OF THE 42ND AMENDMENT, WHICH GAVE PRIMACY TO
DPSPS OVER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
4 UNNI KRISHNAN, J.P. THE SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION AS
CASE (1993) IMPLICIT IN THE RIGHT TO LIFE UNDER ARTICLE 21 AND DIRECTED
THE STATE TO IMPLEMENT IT AS A DPSP UNDER ARTICLE 45. THIS
CASE LINKED THE DPSP TO A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.
5 OLGA TELLIS CASE THE COURT HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD IS AN INTEGRAL
(1985) PART OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE, CONNECTING IT WITH ARTICLE 39(A) OF
THE DPSPS, WHICH EMPHASIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF ADEQUATE
MEANS OF LIVELIHOOD.
6 CONSUMER THE JUDGMENT LINKED THE RIGHT TO HEALTH WITH THE RIGHT TO
EDUCATION AND LIFE UNDER ARTICLE 21 AND DIRECTED THE STATE TO TAKE STEPS
RESEARCH CENTRE TOWARDS SECURING THE HEALTH OF WORKERS, IN LINE WITH THE
CASE (1995) DPSP IN ARTICLE 47.
7 M.C. MEHTA CASE KNOWN FOR ADVANCING ENVIRONMENTAL JURISPRUDENCE IN INDIA,

(1987) THIS CASE LINKED THE DPSP CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
ENVIRONMENT (ARTICLE 48A) WITH THE RIGHT TO LIFE UNDER
ARTICLE 21.
8 I.R. COELHO CASE AFFIRMED THAT LAWS PUT IN THE NINTH SCHEDULE OF THE
(2007) CONSTITUTION ARE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW, ENSURING THE
SUPREMACY OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE DPSPS.

FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES
1 BIJOE EMMANUEL THE CASE, INVOLVING THE RIGHT OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES CHILDREN TO
CASE (1986) NOT SING THE NATIONAL ANTHEM, DISCUSSED THE BALANCE BETWEEN
SUCH PERSONAL RIGHTS AND THE FUNDAMENTAL DUTY TO RESPECT THE
NATIONAL SYMBOLS.
2 AIIMS STUDENTS’ THE SUPREME COURT EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF FUNDAMENTAL

UNION CASE DUTIES, STATING THAT THEY ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT AS FUNDAMENTAL
(2002) RIGHTS. THE CASE HIGHLIGHTED THE DUTY OF EVERY CITIZEN TO
DEVELOP SCIENTIFIC TEMPER AND SPIRIT OF INQUIRY.
3 SURYA DEV RAI EMPHASIZED THAT RESPECT FOR THE JUDICIARY AND ITS ORDERS
CASE (2003) CONSTITUTES A FUNDAMENTAL DUTY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
4 RAMLILA MAIDAN IN THIS CASE, THE COURT OBSERVED THAT FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES UNDER
INCIDENT CASE ARTICLE 51A ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT AS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS FOR
(2012) UPHOLDING CONSTITUTIONAL VALUES.
AMENDMENT OF THE INDIAN

CONSTITUTION
1 SHANKARI PRASAD THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

CASE (1951) UNDER ARTICLE 368 ARE VALID AND DO NOT REQUIRE TO BE TESTED
AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN PART III OF THE
CONSTITUTION. THIS WAS THE FIRST CASE TO DEAL WITH THE EXTENT
OF PARLIAMENT'S POWER TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.
2 SAJJAN SINGH CASE THIS CASE REAFFIRMED THE DECISION IN SHANKARI PRASAD AND
(1965) HELD THAT PARLIAMENT COULD AMEND ANY PART OF THE
CONSTITUTION, INCLUDING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, WITHOUT
JUDICIAL REVIEW.
3 GOLAK NATH CASE THE SUPREME COURT OVERTURNED ITS EARLIER DECISIONS AND HELD
(1967) THAT PARLIAMENT CANNOT AMEND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. THIS CASE
INTRODUCED THE DOCTRINE OF PROSPECTIVE OVERRULING IN INDIAN
LAW.

4 KESAVANANDA A LANDMARK CASE WHERE THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT WHILE
BHARATI CASE PARLIAMENT HAS WIDE POWERS TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION, IT
(1973) CANNOT ALTER THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION. THIS
JUDGMENT INTRODUCED THE 'BASIC STRUCTURE' DOCTRINE.
5 INDIRA NEHRU IN THIS CASE, WHICH AROSE FROM THE ELECTION DISPUTE OF THEN
GANDHI V. RAJ PRIME MINISTER INDIRA GANDHI, THE COURT APPLIED THE BASIC
NARAIN CASE (1975) STRUCTURE DOCTRINE AND STRUCK DOWN THE 39TH AMENDMENT
ACT, WHICH PLACED THE ELECTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER BEYOND
JUDICIAL REVIEW.
6 MINERVA MILLS THE SUPREME COURT DECLARED CLAUSES OF THE 42ND AMENDMENT
CASE (1980) ACT, WHICH GAVE PRIMACY TO THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OVER
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IT REINFORCED THE
BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE AND HELD THAT HARMONY AND BALANCE
BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES IS AN
ESSENTIAL FEATURE OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE.
7 WAMAN RAO CASE THE CASE UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF THE CONSTITUTION (42ND
(1981) AMENDMENT) ACT, 1976, BUT ALSO AFFIRMED THAT AMENDMENTS
WHICH VIOLATE THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION, AS
DEFINED IN KESAVANANDA BHARATI'S CASE, WOULD BE INVALID.
8 I.R. COELHO CASE THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT LAWS PLACED UNDER THE NINTH
(2007) SCHEDULE OF THE CONSTITUTION AFTER APRIL 24, 1973 (THE DATE OF
KESAVANANDA BHARATI JUDGMENT) ARE OPEN TO CHALLENGE ON THE
GROUND OF VIOLATION OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION

1 KESAVANANDA THIS LANDMARK CASE ESTABLISHED THE BASIC STRUCTURE

BHARATI CASE DOCTRINE. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT WHILE PARLIAMENT HAS
(1973) WIDE POWERS TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION, IT CANNOT ALTER ITS
BASIC STRUCTURE OR FRAMEWORK. THIS WAS A SIGNIFICANT SHIFT
FROM EARLIER RULINGS AND SET LIMITS ON PARLIAMENT'S POWER TO
AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.

2 INDIRA NEHRU THIS CASE REINFORCED THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE IN THE
GANDHI V. RAJ CONTEXT OF ELECTORAL LAWS. THE COURT STRUCK DOWN THE 39TH
NARAIN CASE (1975) AMENDMENT, WHICH SOUGHT TO VALIDATE THE ELECTION OF INDIRA
GANDHI, RULING THAT IT VIOLATED THE BASIC STRUCTURE,
PARTICULARLY THE PRINCIPLE OF FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS.
3 MINERVA MILLS THIS JUDGMENT FURTHER STRENGTHENED THE BASIC STRUCTURE

CASE (1980) DOCTRINE. THE SUPREME COURT DECLARED CLAUSES OF THE 42ND
AMENDMENT, WHICH GAVE PRIMACY TO THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES
OVER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IT UPHELD THE
BALANCE BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES
AS A PART OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE.
4 WAMAN RAO CASE THIS CASE UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF THE CONSTITUTION (42ND
(1981) AMENDMENT) ACT, 1976, BUT ALSO AFFIRMED THAT ANY AMENDMENTS
WHICH VIOLATE THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION, AS
DEFINED IN THE KESAVANANDA BHARATI CASE, WOULD BE INVALID.
5 I.R. COELHO CASE THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT LAWS INCLUDED IN THE NINTH
(2007) SCHEDULE OF THE CONSTITUTION AFTER APRIL 24, 1973 (THE DATE OF
THE KESAVANANDA BHARATI JUDGMENT) ARE OPEN TO CHALLENGE ON
THE GROUND OF VIOLATION OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE.
6 S.R. BOMMAI CASE THIS CASE IS SIGNIFICANT FOR INTERPRETING THE PRESIDENT'S
(1994) POWER UNDER ARTICLE 356 (IMPOSITION OF PRESIDENT'S RULE IN
STATES). THE COURT HELD THAT A PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT'S
RULE IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CAN BE STRUCK DOWN IF
IT VIOLATES THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
7 KIHOTO HOLLOHAN THE CASE DEALT WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE 52ND
V. ZACHILLHU CASE AMENDMENT (ANTI-DEFECTION LAW). THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD
(1992) THE AMENDMENT BUT CLARIFIED THAT JUDICIAL REVIEW WOULD STILL
BE AVAILABLE TO ENSURE THAT THE PROVISIONS WERE NOT USED FOR
PURPOSES NOT ENVISAGED BY THE CONSTITUTION, THUS PROTECTING
THE BASIC STRUCTURE.

FEDERAL SYSTEM, CENTRE-STATE RELATIONS
& INTER-STATE RELATIONS
1 STATE OF WEST THIS CASE AFFIRMED THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE INDIAN PARLIAMENT
BENGAL V. UNION OF IN MATTERS OF LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE AND CLARIFIED THE
INDIA CASE (1963) EXTENT OF THE CENTRAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS' POWERS,
REINFORCING THE FEDERAL STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
2 S.R. BOMMAI CASE A SIGNIFICANT CASE REGARDING THE IMPOSITION OF PRESIDENT'S

(1994) RULE IN STATES UNDER ARTICLE 356. THE COURT HELD THAT THE
POWER OF THE PRESIDENT TO DISMISS STATE GOVERNMENTS IS
NOT ABSOLUTE AND IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW, PROTECTING
THE FEDERAL STRUCTURE.
3 KESAVANANDA THIS CASE ESTABLISHED THAT THE AMENDMENT POWER OF THE

BHARATI CASE (1973) PARLIAMENT UNDER ARTICLE 368 DOES NOT EXTEND TO ALTERING
THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH INCLUDES
THE FEDERAL CHARACTER OF THE POLITY.
4 H.S. DHILLON CASE THE CASE INVOLVED THE EXTENT OF PARLIAMENT'S POWER TO TAX.
(1971) THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF THE PARLIAMENT'S
WIDE TAXING POWERS, EMPHASIZING THE BALANCE IN THE FEDERAL
STRUCTURE BETWEEN THE CENTRE'S AND STATES' FISCAL POWERS.
5 BABULAL PARATE CASE THIS CASE DEALT WITH THE IMPOSITION OF RESTRICTIONS ON
(1961) MOVEMENT AND CONDUCTING BUSINESS ACROSS STATES. THE
SUPREME COURT'S DECISION HIGHLIGHTED THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS GOVERNING FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND TRADE
ACROSS STATES.
6 STATE OF MADHYA THIS CASE INVOLVED THE DISPUTE OVER THE SHARING OF THE
PRADESH V. UNION OF NARMADA RIVER WATERS. THE COURT'S DECISION UNDERSCORED
INDIA CASE (2011) THE IMPORTANCE OF COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM AND EQUITABLE
WATER DISTRIBUTION IN INTER-STATE RIVER DISPUTES.
7 MULLAPERIYAR DAM ADDRESSING THE LONG-STANDING DISPUTE BETWEEN KERALA AND

CASE (2014) TAMIL NADU OVER THE MULLAPERIYAR DAM, THE SUPREME COURT
UPHELD THE SAFETY AND INTEGRITY OF THE DAM, EMPHASIZING
COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM IN RESOLVING INTER-STATE ISSUES.

8 GOVERNMENT OF NCT CLARIFIED THE POWERS AND STATUS OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
OF DELHI CASE (2018) TERRITORY OF DELHI, DISTINGUISHING IT FROM FULL STATES AND
EMPHASIZING THE FEDERAL STRUCTURE.
EMERGENCY PROVISIONS OF CONSTITUTION

1 INDIRA NEHRU ARISING FROM AN ELECTORAL DISPUTE DURING THE EMERGENCY, THE
GANDHI V. RAJ SUPREME COURT DECLARED THE ELECTION OF THEN PRIME MINISTER
NARAIN CASE INDIRA GANDHI VOID. THIS CASE WAS SIGNIFICANT FOR CHALLENGING
(1975) THE EXCESSES DURING THE EMERGENCY.
2 ADM JABALPUR V. KNOWN AS THE HABEAS CORPUS CASE, THIS JUDGMENT DURING THE
SHIVKANT SHUKLA 1975 EMERGENCY HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIBERTY UNDER
CASE (1976) ARTICLE 21 COULD BE SUSPENDED. THIS CONTROVERSIAL DECISION
WAS WIDELY CRITICIZED FOR ITS STAND ON FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
DURING AN EMERGENCY.
3 BHANUDAS IN THIS CASE, THE SUPREME COURT DEALT WITH THE SUSPENSION OF
KRISHNA GAWDE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS DURING THE EMERGENCY DECLARED IN 1975. THE
CASE (1977) JUDGMENT MARKED A SHIFT TOWARDS THE RESTORATION OF CIVIL
LIBERTIES POST-EMERGENCY.
4 MINERVA MILLS THIS CASE REVIEWED THE 42ND AMENDMENT, ENACTED DURING THE
CASE (1980) EMERGENCY, WHICH HAD ATTEMPTED TO GIVE PRIMACY TO DIRECTIVE
PRINCIPLES OVER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. THE COURT STRUCK DOWN
THE AMENDMENT AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AFFIRMING THAT CHANGES
MADE DURING AN EMERGENCY MUST RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION'S
BASIC STRUCTURE.
5 WAMAN RAO CASE THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE AMENDMENTS ENACTED AFTER THE
(1981) KESAVANANDA BHARATI JUDGMENT (WHICH INCLUDES THE PERIOD OF
EMERGENCY) WOULD HAVE TO PASS THE BASIC STRUCTURE TEST,
ENSURING THAT EMERGENCY LAWS DO NOT OVERRIDE ESSENTIAL
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES.
6 LIVERSIDGE V. WHILE A BRITISH CASE, LIVERSIDGE V. ANDERSON HAS BEEN

ANDERSON CASE INFLUENTIAL IN SHAPING THE JURISPRUDENCE AROUND PREVENTIVE
(1942) DETENTION AND EMERGENCY POWERS, EVEN CITED IN INDIAN CASES
LIKE ADM JABALPUR.

7 S.R. BOMMAI CASE THIS LANDMARK JUDGMENT ADDRESSED THE MISUSE OF ARTICLE 356,
(1994) WHICH ALLOWS FOR PRESIDENT'S RULE IN STATES. THE COURT
ESTABLISHED JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT'S PROCLAMATION,
THUS PROVIDING CHECKS AND BALANCES ON EMERGENCY POWERS.
PRESIDENT
1 J.B. KRIPALANI THIS CASE DEALT WITH THE EXTENT OF LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGES,
CASE (1965) WHICH ALSO REFLECT ON THE PRESIDENT'S ROLE IN THE
PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, PARTICULARLY REGARDING ASSENT TO BILLS
AND SUMMONING OF PARLIAMENT.
2 SHAMSHER SINGH ALTHOUGH FOCUSED ON THE POWERS OF THE GOVERNOR, THIS CASE IS
CASE (1974) SIGNIFICANT AS THE SUPREME COURT’S OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE
PRESIDENT’S POWERS ARE OFTEN APPLIED ANALOGOUSLY. THE COURT
EMPHASIZED THAT THE PRESIDENT, LIKE THE GOVERNOR, EXERCISES
HIS/HER POWERS WITH THE AID AND ADVICE OF THE COUNCIL OF
MINISTERS.
3 S.R. BOMMAI CASE THIS LANDMARK CASE IS SIGNIFICANT FOR ITS EXAMINATION OF THE
(1994) PRESIDENT'S POWER UNDER ARTICLE 356 TO IMPOSE PRESIDENT'S RULE
IN STATES. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT SUCH A PROCLAMATION IS
SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW, THEREBY PLACING CHECKS ON THE
PRESIDENT'S DISCRETIONARY POWER.
4 RAMESHWAR IN THIS CASE, THE SUPREME COURT SCRUTINIZED THE IMPOSITION OF

PRASAD CASE PRESIDENT'S RULE IN BIHAR, PROVIDING CLARITY ON THE
(2006) CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT’S POWERS UNDER
ARTICLE 356.
5 HARISH CHANDRA RELATED TO THE IMPOSITION OF PRESIDENT'S RULE IN UTTARAKHAND,

SINGH RAWAT THIS CASE INVOLVED THE ASSESSMENT OF THE MATERIAL BEFORE THE
CASE (2016) PRESIDENT AT THE TIME OF PROCLAMATION. THE COURT UNDERLINED
THE NEED FOR APPROPRIATE MATERIAL AND VALID REASONS FOR SUCH
PROCLAMATIONS.
6 MARU RAM CASE THIS CASE EXAMINED THE PRESIDENT'S PARDONING POWERS UNDER
(1980) ARTICLE 72. THE SUPREME COURT CLARIFIED THE SCOPE AND EXTENT
OF THESE POWERS, INCLUDING THE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE EXERCISE
OF MERCY POWERS. THE COURT CLARIFIED THAT THESE POWERS ARE TO

BE EXERCISED ON THE ADVICE OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND NOT
AT THE PRESIDENT’S DISCRETION.
7 RAMA NAND CASE THIS JUDGMENT DISCUSSED THE PARDONING POWER OF THE
(1988) PRESIDENT, EMPHASIZING THAT IT IS AN ACT OF GRACE AND CANNOT
BE CLAIMED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, AND ITS EXERCISE CAN BE
EXAMINED BY THE COURT ONLY FOR CHECKING ARBITRARINESS.
8 KEHAR SINGH THIS CASE DEALT WITH THE PRESIDENT'S PARDONING POWERS UNDER
CASE (1989) ARTICLE 72. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE EXERCISE OF THESE
POWERS BY THE PRESIDENT IS NOT TO BE SUBJECTED TO JUDICIAL
REVIEW, EXCEPT IN CASES OF MALAFIDE OR ARBITRARINESS.
9 R.C. COOPER CASE ALTHOUGH PRIMARILY A CHALLENGE TO BANK NATIONALIZATION, THIS

(1970) CASE ALSO HAD IMPLICATIONS FOR UNDERSTANDING THE LIMITS OF
EXECUTIVE POWER, INCLUDING THE ORDINANCE-MAKING POWER.
10 D.C. WADHWA A SIGNIFICANT CASE REGARDING THE PRESIDENT'S ORDINANCE-

CASE (1987) MAKING POWER UNDER ARTICLE 123. THE COURT HELD THAT REPEATED
RE-PROMULGATION OF ORDINANCES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IS A
SUBVERSION OF DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATIVE PROCESSES.
11 KRISHAN KUMAR THIS CASE FURTHER ELABORATED ON THE ORDINANCE-MAKING POWER.

SINGH CASE THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE SATISFACTION OF THE PRESIDENT
(2017) IN PROMULGATING AN ORDINANCE IS NOT IMMUNE FROM JUDICIAL
REVIEW.
COUNCIL OF MINISTERS
1 RAM JAWAYA THIS CASE ESTABLISHED THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE EXECUTIVE POWER OF
KAPUR CASE THE STATE IS VESTED IN THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS WITH THE CHIEF
(1955) MINISTER AT THE HEAD, AND NOT THE GOVERNOR. IT CLARIFIED THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS VIS-À-VIS THE
GOVERNOR.
2 SAMSHER SINGH THIS JUDGMENT CLARIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT, LIKE THE GOVERNOR,
CASE (1974) EXERCISES HIS/HER CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTIONS ON THE ADVICE OF THE
COUNCIL OF MINISTERS. IT EMPHASIZED THE REAL EXECUTIVE POWER
LYING WITH THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS.

3 S.P. GUPTA CASE ALSO KNOWN AS THE JUDGES' TRANSFER CASE, THIS JUDGMENT
(1981) HIGHLIGHTED THE ROLE OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS IN THE
APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES TO THE HIGHER JUDICIARY. IT EMPHASIZED THE
PRINCIPLE OF CONSULTATION IN SUCH APPOINTMENTS.
4 S.R. BOMMAI THIS LANDMARK CASE IS SIGNIFICANT FOR THE ROLE OF THE COUNCIL OF
CASE (1994) MINISTERS IN ADVISING THE PRESIDENT ON THE PROCLAMATION OF
PRESIDENT'S RULE IN STATES UNDER ARTICLE 356.
5 COMMON CAUSE THE CASE CONCERNED THE POWERS OF THE PRIME MINISTER AND, BY
CASE (1999) EXTENSION, THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS IN THE APPOINTMENT OF
VARIOUS STATUTORY AUTHORITIES, HIGHLIGHTING THE IMPORTANCE OF
PROPRIETY IN SUCH APPOINTMENTS.
6 RAMESHWAR WHILE THE CASE WAS PRIMARILY ABOUT PRESIDENT'S RULE IN BIHAR, IT
PRASAD CASE INDIRECTLY DEALT WITH THE ROLE OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS AT THE
(2006) UNION LEVEL IN ADVISING THE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 356.
7 B.P. SINGHAL THIS CASE DEALT WITH THE REMOVAL OF GOVERNORS BY THE PRESIDENT.
CASE (2010) THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT SUCH REMOVAL SHOULD NOT BE
ARBITRARY, IMPLYING THAT THE ADVICE OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS
ON SUCH MATTERS MUST BE BASED ON VALID REASONS.
PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES
1 RAJA RAM PAL THIS CASE UPHELD THE EXPULSION OF MEMBERS FROM PARLIAMENT BUT
CASE (2007) CLARIFIED THAT SUCH ACTIONS OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES ARE
SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW, ESPECIALLY WHEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE
AT STAKE.
2 KALPANA THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT REPORTS OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES

MEHTA CASE CAN BE RELIED UPON IN COURT PROCEEDINGS TO ESTABLISH FACTS, THUS
(2018) RECOGNIZING THEIR IMPORTANCE AND RELEVANCE IN JUDICIAL MATTERS.

JUDICIAL REVIEW
1 GOLAK NATH CASE HELD THAT PARLIAMENT CANNOT AMEND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS,
(1967) ASSERTING THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OVER
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.
2 KESAVANANDA ESTABLISHED THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE, ASSERTING THE

BHARATI CASE (1973) POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW TO ENSURE THAT CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENTS DO NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
3 MANEKA GANDHI CASE EXPANDED THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 21 AND ESTABLISHED THE
(1978) PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF LAWS INFRINGING ON LIFE AND
PERSONAL LIBERTY.
4 MINERVA MILLS LTD. ENHANCED JUDICIAL REVIEW BY DECLARING TWO PROVISIONS OF

V. UNION OF INDIA THE 42ND AMENDMENT, WHICH SOUGHT TO REDUCE THE SCOPE OF
(1980) JUDICIAL REVIEW, UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
5 S.P. GUPTA CASE KNOWN AS THE FIRST JUDGES CASE, IT DISCUSSED JUDICIAL
(1981) REVIEW IN THE CONTEXT OF THE APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES.
6 KIHOTO HOLLOHAN V. UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE TENTH SCHEDULE (ANTI-

ZACHILLHU CASE DEFECTION LAW) WHILE ASSERTING THE POWER OF JUDICIAL
(1992) REVIEW.
7 S.R. BOMMAI CASE JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLIED TO THE PRESIDENT'S PROCLAMATION OF

(1994) PRESIDENT’S RULE IN STATES UNDER ARTICLE 356.
8 L. CHANDRA KUMAR DECLARED THAT THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE HIGH
CASE (1997) COURTS AND THE SUPREME COURT IS PART OF THE BASIC
STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
9 RAJA RAM PAL CASE ASSERTED THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN MATTERS OF
(2007) PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE AND EXPULSION OF MEMBERS FROM
PARLIAMENT.
10 I.R. COELHO CASE ASSERTED THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OVER LAWS PLACED
(2007) WITHIN THE NINTH SCHEDULE OF THE CONSTITUTION POST-APRIL
24, 1973.

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
1 KESAVANANDA BHARATI ALTHOUGH PRIMARILY KNOWN FOR ESTABLISHING THE DOCTRINE

CASE (1973) OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION, THIS CASE
ALSO MARKED A SIGNIFICANT SHIFT TOWARDS JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
BY ASSERTING THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW TO UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION'S BASIC STRUCTURE.
2 MANEKA GANDHI CASE THIS CASE EXPANDED THE INTERPRETATION OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE
(1978) AND PERSONAL LIBERTY UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION. THE COURT ADOPTED A MORE ACTIVE APPROACH
IN ENSURING THAT LAWS AND GOVERNMENT ACTIONS DO NOT
INFRINGE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, SETTING A PRECEDENT FOR
PROACTIVE JUDICIAL SCRUTINY.
3 SUNIL BATRA CASE THE COURT INTERVENED IN THE MATTER OF PRISONERS' RIGHTS,
(1978) PARTICULARLY CONCERNING SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, SHOWING
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.
4 HUSSAINARA KHATOON THE SUPREME COURT'S INTERVENTION IN ENSURING THE SPEEDY

CASE (1979) TRIAL OF UNDERTRIAL PRISONERS, LEADING TO THEIR RELEASE,
WAS A LANDMARK IN JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.
5 S.P. GUPTA CASE (1981) OFTEN REFERRED TO AS THE JUDGES' TRANSFER CASE, THIS
JUDGMENT LAID THE FOUNDATION FOR PILS IN INDIA. THE COURT
TOOK A MORE LIBERAL APPROACH IN ACCEPTING WRIT PETITIONS
FROM PUBLIC-SPIRITED CITIZENS AND ORGANIZATIONS, MARKING
A SHIFT TOWARDS JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.
6 RURAL LITIGATION AND KNOWN AS THE DOON VALLEY CASE, THIS WAS ONE OF THE FIRST
ENTITLEMENT KENDRA, MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES WHERE THE SUPREME COURT
DEHRADUN CASE (1985) ACTIVELY INTERVENED TO BALANCE ENVIRONMENTAL AND
DEVELOPMENTAL CONCERNS, SHOWCASING AN INSTANCE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.
7 M.C. MEHTA CASE KNOWN AS THE OLEUM GAS LEAK CASE, THIS WAS ONE OF THE
(1987) EARLY INSTANCES OF THE SUPREME COURT'S ACTIVE
INTERVENTION IN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, LEADING TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE 'ABSOLUTE LIABILITY' PRINCIPLE AND
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL).

8 VISHAKA CASE (1997) THE SUPREME COURT LAID DOWN GUIDELINES AGAINST SEXUAL
HARASSMENT AT THE WORKPLACE IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC
LEGISLATION, A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.
9 ASSOCIATION FOR UPHOLDING THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION, INCLUDING THE RIGHT

DEMOCRATIC REFORMS TO KNOW THE CRIMINAL BACKGROUNDS OF ELECTORAL
CASE (2002) CANDIDATES, REFLECTED JUDICIAL ACTIVISM FOR GREATER
TRANSPARENCY IN ELECTIONS.
10 PRAKASH SINGH CASE JUDICIAL ACTIVISM WAS EVIDENT WHEN THE COURT ISSUED
(2006) DIRECTIONS FOR POLICE REFORMS TO ENSURE BETTER POLICING
AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
11 LAXMI V. UNION OF THE COURT'S DIRECTIONS FOR REGULATION AND CONTROL OF

INDIA CASE (2014) ACID SALES TO PREVENT ACID ATTACKS WERE A SIGNIFICANT
INSTANCE OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.
12 NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR DECRIMINALIZATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY BY STRIKING DOWN

CASE (2018) PARTS OF SECTION 377 OF THE IPC SHOWCASED JUDICIAL
ACTIVISM IN UPHOLDING PERSONAL LIBERTIES AND PRIVACY.
GOVERNOR
1 SAMSHER SINGH THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE GOVERNOR FUNCTIONS UNDER THE
CASE (1974) AID AND ADVICE OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS, WITH THE CHIEF
MINISTER AT THE HEAD, IN ALL MATTERS EXCEPT WHERE HE IS REQUIRED
TO EXERCISE HIS DISCRETION.
2 S.R. BOMMAI THIS LANDMARK CASE EXAMINED THE POWER OF THE GOVERNOR TO
CASE (1994) RECOMMEND PRESIDENT’S RULE UNDER ARTICLE 356. THE JUDGMENT
CURTAILED ARBITRARY DISMISSAL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS BY
EMPHASIZING JUDICIAL REVIEW.
3 BUTA SINGH THIS CASE INVOLVED THE IMPOSITION OF PRESIDENT'S RULE IN BIHAR
CASE (2005) AND SCRUTINIZED THE GOVERNOR'S REPORT RECOMMENDING IT,
EMPHASIZING THE NEED FOR OBJECTIVITY AND FAIRNESS.
4 RAMESHWAR CHALLENGED THE IMPOSITION OF PRESIDENT'S RULE IN BIHAR. THE

PRASAD CASE JUDGMENT CRITICIZED THE GOVERNOR’S REPORT WHICH LED TO THE
(2006)

IMPOSITION, UNDERSCORING THE NEED FOR A MORE BALANCED
APPROACH.
5 JYOTI BASU CASE DEALT WITH THE ROLE OF THE GOVERNOR IN THE DISSOLUTION OF THE
(1982) LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, WITH THE SUPREME COURT UPHOLDING THE
IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING CONSTITUTIONAL SANCTITY IN SUCH
DECISIONS.
6 KALYAN SINGH RELATED TO THE DISSOLUTION OF THE UTTAR PRADESH ASSEMBLY, THE
CASE (1994) SUPREME COURT HIGHLIGHTED THE GOVERNOR'S DISCRETION IN SUCH
MATTERS, SUBJECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS.
7 SMT. SUMITRA THIS CASE INVOLVED THE POWERS OF THE GOVERNOR IN PARDONING
DEVI CASE SENTENCES AND THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OVER SUCH POWERS.
(1990)
8 JAGDAMBIKA PAL ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF MAJORITY IN THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AND
CASE (1999) THE GOVERNOR’S ROLE IN SUCH A SITUATION. THE SUPREME COURT
ORDERED A COMPOSITE FLOOR TEST IN THE UTTAR PRADESH
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.
9 B.P. SINGHAL ON THE REMOVAL OF GOVERNORS, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT
CASE (2010) GOVERNORS CANNOT BE REMOVED ON GROUNDS IRRELEVANT TO THEIR
ABILITY OR BEHAVIOUR, PROVIDING A MEASURE OF SECURITY TO THEIR
TENURE.
10 D.C. WADHWA ADDRESSED THE MISUSE OF THE ORDINANCE-MAKING POWER BY THE

CASE (1987) STATE OF BIHAR, WHERE ORDINANCES WERE CONTINUALLY RE-
PROMULGATED WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL. THE COURT HELD THIS
PRACTICE TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
11 KRISHNA KUMAR THIS LANDMARK JUDGMENT RE-EXAMINED THE D.C. WADHWA CASE AND
SINGH CASE PROVIDED COMPREHENSIVE GUIDELINES ON THE ORDINANCE-MAKING
(2017) POWER, EMPHASIZING THAT RE-PROMULGATION OF ORDINANCES IS A
FRAUD ON THE CONSTITUTION AND A SUBVERSION OF DEMOCRATIC
LEGISLATIVE PROCESSES.
12 SATYA PAL MALIK DEALT WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS OF THE GOVERNOR AND HIS
CASE (2015) POWERS CONCERNING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE CHIEF MINISTER.
13 NABAM REBIA ADDRESSED THE DISCRETIONARY POWERS OF THE GOVERNOR IN

CASE (2016) ADVANCING THE ASSEMBLY SESSION DATES. THE SUPREME COURT
CLARIFIED THE LIMITS OF THE GOVERNOR'S DISCRETION.

PANCHAYATI RAJ AND MUNICIPALITIES
1 RAJBALA CASE UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF A HARYANA LAW WHICH

HARYANA (2015) PRESCRIBED EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR CANDIDATES
CONTESTING PANCHAYAT ELECTIONS.
2 JAVED CASE CHALLENGED A LAW DISQUALIFYING PERSONS HAVING MORE THAN TWO
HARYANA (2003) LIVING CHILDREN FROM HOLDING OFFICE IN PANCHAYATS,
HIGHLIGHTING THE BALANCE BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND
STATUTORY QUALIFICATIONS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS.
3 LAXMI SAGAR INVOLVED ISSUES OF LAND ACQUISITION BY LOCAL BODIES,

APPAREL EXPORT HIGHLIGHTING THE ROLE OF PANCHAYATS AND MUNICIPALITIES IN
PARK CASE (2008) DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.
ELECTION COMMISSION AND ELECTIONS

1 MOHINDER SINGH GILL REINFORCED THE WIDE-RANGING POWERS OF THE ELECTION

CASE (1978) COMMISSION UNDER ARTICLE 324 OF THE CONSTITUTION TO
CONDUCT FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS.
2 SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF THE JUDGMENT, WHILE PRIMARILY ON BROADCASTING RIGHTS,

INFORMATION & INDIRECTLY TOUCHED UPON THE ELECTION COMMISSION'S
BROADCASTING, GOVT. OF ROLE IN REGULATING MEDIA DURING ELECTIONS.
INDIA CASE (1995)
3 ANUKUL CHANDRA UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE ELECTION

PRADHAN CASE (1996) COMMISSION'S DECISION-MAKING PROCESS, WHERE
DECISIONS ARE MADE BY A MAJORITY VOTE.
4 COMMON CAUSE V. UNION THE SUPREME COURT DIRECTED THE ELECTION COMMISSION
OF INDIA (1996) TO IMPLEMENT THE MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT, A SET OF
GUIDELINES FOR THE CONDUCT OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND
CANDIDATES.
5 DR. RAMESH YESHWANT THE COURT HELD THAT APPEALING FOR VOTES ON THE
PRABHOO CASE (1996) GROUND OF RELIGION AMOUNTS TO CORRUPT PRACTICES.

6 ELECTION COMMISSION OF EMPHASIZED THE AUTONOMY OF THE ELECTION COMMISSION
INDIA V. ASHOK KUMAR IN DEALING WITH DISPUTES RELATED TO SPLIT OR MERGER OF
(2000) RECOGNIZED POLITICAL PARTIES.
7 AMITABH BACHCHAN CASE HIGHLIGHTED THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RIGHT TO

(2001) INFORMATION IN THE CONTEXT OF ELECTIONS, PARTICULARLY
REGARDING THE DISCLOSURE OF CANDIDATE EXPENDITURES.
8 ASSOCIATION FOR DIRECTED THE ELECTION COMMISSION TO REQUIRE

DEMOCRATIC REFORMS CANDIDATES TO FURNISH DETAILS OF THEIR CRIMINAL
CASE (2002) RECORDS, ASSETS, AND LIABILITIES, AND EDUCATIONAL
QUALIFICATIONS.
9 INDIAN NATIONAL DEFINED 'ELECTION' UNDER ARTICLE 324 TO INCLUDE ALL

CONGRESS (I) V. INSTITUTE STEPS AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS STARTING FROM THE
OF SOCIAL WELFARE CASE ANNOUNCEMENT OF ELECTION TILL THE DECLARATION OF
(2002) RESULTS.
10 PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE RIGHT OF VOTERS TO CAST
LIBERTIES CASE (2003) A NEGATIVE VOTE (NOTA) IN ELECTIONS.
11 KULDIP NAYAR CASE (2006) UPHELD THE ABOLITION OF THE DOMICILE REQUIREMENT FOR
RAJYA SABHA MEMBERS AND THE VALIDITY OF OPEN BALLOT
SYSTEM IN RAJYA SABHA ELECTIONS.
12 LILY THOMAS CASE (2013) RULED THAT ANY MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT (MP), MEMBER OF
THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (MLA), OR MEMBER OF THE
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (MLC) WHO IS CONVICTED OF A CRIME
AND SENTENCED TO TWO OR MORE YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT
LOSES THEIR SEAT IN THE HOUSE WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT.
13 JAN CHAUKIDAR CASE HELD THAT PERSONS IN LAWFUL POLICE CUSTODY, OTHER
(2013) THAN PREVENTIVE DETENTION, CANNOT CONTEST ELECTIONS
TO LEGISLATIVE BODIES.
14 SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY CHALLENGED THE USE OF ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES

CASE (2013) (EVMS) AND DEMANDED THE INTRODUCTION OF VOTER-
VERIFIED PAPER AUDIT TRAIL (VVPAT) SYSTEMS.
15 S. SUBRAMANIAM BALAJI DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF FREEBIES PROMISED BY POLITICAL

CASE (2013) PARTIES IN THEIR ELECTION MANIFESTOS, AND THE COURT
DIRECTED THE ELECTION COMMISSION TO FRAME GUIDELINES
FOR THE SAME.

16 ABHIRAM SINGH V. C.D. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT SEEKING VOTES IN THE NAME
COMMACHEN CASE (2017) OF RELIGION, RACE, CASTE, COMMUNITY, OR LANGUAGE IS
IMPERMISSIBLE UNDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
ACT, 1951, AND WOULD CONSTITUTE A CORRUPT PRACTICE.
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

1 KOTHARI'S CASE PERTAINED TO THE RULES AND PROCEDURES OF THE UPSC,

(1967) PARTICULARLY REGARDING PROMOTIONS AND SENIORITY IN CIVIL
SERVICES.
2 ASHOK KUMAR YADAV THE JUDGMENT DISCUSSED THE SELECTION PROCESS AND CRITERIA
CASE (1985) USED BY THE UPSC AND STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONS,
EMPHASIZING FAIRNESS AND TRANSPARENCY.
3 R. VISHWANATHA DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION IN PUBLIC

PILLAI CASE (2004) SERVICES AND THE POWERS OF THE UPSC IN DISCIPLINARY MATTERS.
4 SANJAY SINGH CASE THIS CASE DEALT WITH THE EXAMINATION PROCESS CONDUCTED BY
(2007) THE UPSC, PARTICULARLY THE ALLOCATION OF SERVICES BASED ON
THE RESULTS.
COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL

1 K.S. SUBRAMANIAN CASE DISCUSSED THE SCOPE OF THE CAG'S POWERS AND THE
(1976) EXTENT OF JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE IN CAG'S REPORTS.
2 R.K. JAIN CASE (1993) THE SUPREME COURT DISCUSSED THE INDEPENDENCE OF
THE CAG AND THE IMPORTANCE OF ITS ROLE IN
MAINTAINING CHECKS AND BALANCES IN GOVERNMENT
FINANCES.
3 RELIANCE AIRPORT ADDRESSED THE ROLE OF THE CAG IN AUDITING

DEVELOPERS PVT LTD CASE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS WITH PRIVATE ENTITIES,
(2006) EMPHASIZING THE CAG'S OVERSIGHT FUNCTION IN PUBLIC
EXPENDITURE.

4 S. TEL LIMITED CASE (2009) THE JUDGMENT HIGHLIGHTED THE ROLE OF THE CAG IN
SCRUTINIZING FISCAL DECISIONS IN PUBLIC-PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIPS, EMPHASIZING TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY.
5 ASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED DEALT WITH THE CAG'S POWER TO AUDIT PRIVATE TELECOM
TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS COMPANIES, AFFIRMING THE CAG'S BROAD AUDITING
OF INDIA CASE (2012) AUTHORITY.
6 OIL AND NATURAL GAS THIS CASE RELATED TO THE CAG’S AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT
CORPORATION LTD CASE PERFORMANCE AUDITS OF GOVERNMENT COMPANIES AND
(2012) JOINT VENTURES.
7 CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE CONTEXT OF THE 2G SPECTRUM CASE, THE
LITIGATION CASE (2012) JUDGMENT UNDERSCORED THE CAG’S ROLE IN
HIGHLIGHTING IRREGULARITIES IN GOVERNMENT POLICIES
AND ACTIONS.
CENTRAL AND STATE INFORMATION

COMMISSION
1 ASSOCIATION FOR THE SUPREME COURT DIRECTED THE ELECTION COMMISSION TO

DEMOCRATIC REFORMS REQUIRE CANDIDATES TO DISCLOSE CRIMINAL, FINANCIAL, AND
CASE (2002) EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND, UNDERSCORING THE ROLE OF RTI
IN PROMOTING TRANSPARENCY IN ELECTIONS.
2 BHAGAT SINGH CASE THE DELHI HIGH COURT CLARIFIED THE DEFINITION OF
(2007) 'INFORMATION' UNDER THE RTI ACT AND THE ROLE OF
INFORMATION COMMISSIONS IN INTERPRETING THE ACT.
3 KUSUM SHARMA CASE THE JUDGMENT EMPHASIZED THE PROACTIVE DISCLOSURE OF

(2008) INFORMATION BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES, A KEY ASPECT OVERSEEN
BY INFORMATION COMMISSIONS.
4 SUBHASH CHANDRA THE DELHI HIGH COURT UPHELD THAT THE RBI CANNOT DENY
AGRAWAL CASE (2010) INFORMATION UNDER THE CLOAK OF 'ECONOMIC INTEREST',
UNDERLINING THE IMPORTANCE OF TRANSPARENCY IN
ECONOMIC MATTERS.

5 ADITYA BANDOPADHYAY THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE RIGHT OF STUDENTS TO
CASE (2011) ACCESS THEIR EVALUATED ANSWER SHEETS UNDER THE RTI ACT,
EMPHASIZING THE ROLE OF INFORMATION COMMISSIONS IN
ENSURING TRANSPARENCY IN EXAMINATIONS.
6 GIRISH RAMCHANDRA THE COURT RULED THAT PERSONAL INFORMATION, NOT

DESHPANDE CASE (2012) CONNECTED TO ANY PUBLIC ACTIVITY OR INTEREST, CANNOT BE
DISCLOSED UNDER THE RTI ACT, DELINEATING THE LIMITS OF
THE ACT.
7 NAMIT SHARMA CASE THE SUPREME COURT RULED ON THE QUALIFICATIONS AND
(2013) SELECTION PROCESS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CENTRAL AND
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONS, ENSURING THEIR
INDEPENDENCE AND EFFECTIVENESS.
8 THALAPPALAM SER. COOP. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES COME
BANK LTD. CASE (2013) UNDER THE RTI ACT, EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF TRANSPARENCY
TO THESE INSTITUTIONS.
9 D.A.V. COLLEGE TRUST & THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS,
MANAGEMENT SOCIETY INCLUDING PRIVATE COLLEGES, FALL UNDER THE RTI ACT, THUS
CASE (2019) WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF INFORMATION COMMISSIONS.
10 SUBHASH CHANDRA THE COURT HELD THAT RTI APPLICANTS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO
TYAGI CASE (2013) GIVE REASONS FOR THEIR REQUESTS, AFFIRMING THE PRINCIPLE
OF TRANSPARENCY.
CVC AND CBI

1 VINEET NARAIN CASE (1997) THIS LANDMARK JUDGMENT ESTABLISHED THE PRINCIPLE OF
AUTONOMY OF THE CBI AND CVC, SETTING GUIDELINES
KNOWN AS THE "VINEET NARAIN DIRECTIONS" TO PROTECT
THESE INSTITUTIONS FROM EXTERNAL INFLUENCES.
2 CENTRAL VIGILANCE AFFIRMED THE POWERS OF THE CVC AND ITS ROLE IN
COMMISSION V. UNION OF OVERSEEING THE CBI'S FUNCTIONING, PARTICULARLY IN
INDIA CASE (1998) CORRUPTION CASES INVOLVING GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.

3 DR. B. SINGH V. UNION OF ADDRESSED THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK WITHIN WHICH THE CBI
INDIA CASE (2004) OPERATES, PARTICULARLY IN RELATION TO THE DELHI
SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT ACT.
4 STATE OF WEST BENGAL V. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT HIGH COURTS CAN ORDER
COMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION CBI INVESTIGATIONS WITHOUT THE STATE’S CONSENT,
OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS CASE WHICH IS SIGNIFICANT FOR THE CBI'S JURISDICTION AND
(2010) AUTONOMY.
5 CVC V. NARAYANAN MOOSATH THIS CASE DEALT WITH THE CVC’S POWER TO GIVE
CASE (2013) DIRECTIONS TO THE CBI AND REINFORCED THE
COMMISSION'S SUPERVISORY ROLE.
6 SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY V. THE SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN THE “SINGLE

DIRECTOR, CBI CASE (2014) DIRECTIVE” PROVISION, WHICH REQUIRED GOVERNMENT
APPROVAL TO INVESTIGATE SENIOR BUREAUCRATS, THUS
EMPOWERING THE CBI.
LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTAS

1 VINEET NARAIN CASE THIS JUDGMENT LED TO MAJOR REFORMS IN THE CBI AND CVC,
(1997) INDIRECTLY IMPACTING THE FRAMEWORK WITHIN WHICH LOKPAL
AND LOKAYUKTAS OPERATE.
2 COMMON CAUSE V. ADDRESSED THE DELAY IN THE APPOINTMENT OF THE LOKPAL,

UNION OF INDIA CASE HIGHLIGHTING THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING AN ANTI-CORRUPTION
(2017) OMBUDSMAN.
CIVIL SERVICES REFORMS, CORRUPTION,

POLITICAL NEXUS
1 RAMASHANKAR SC OBSERVED THAT EMPLOYMENT BASED ON THE BASIS OF

RAGHUVANSHI CASE (1983) PAST POLITICAL LOYALTIES VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 AND 16 OF
THE CONSTITUTION.

2 PRAKASH SINGH CASE A PIVOTAL SUPREME COURT CASE FOR POLICE REFORM,
(2006) ISSUING DIRECTIVES TO IMPLEMENT MAJOR REFORMS FOR
POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY AND EFFICIENCY.
3 T.S.R. SUBRAMANIAN CASE ADVOCATED FOR PROTECTING CIVIL SERVANTS FROM

(2013) WRONGFUL POLITICAL INTERFERENCE, SUGGESTING FIXED
TENURES AND RECORDING OF MINISTERIAL DIRECTIVES.
4 K. VEERASWAMI CASE THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT JUDGES OF THE HIGH
(1991) COURTS AND SUPREME COURT CAN BE PROSECUTED FOR
CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT, EMPHASIZING JUDICIAL
ACCOUNTABILITY.
5 SANJIV KUMAR CASE (2005) HIGHLIGHTED CORRUPTION IN RECRUITMENT PROCESSES AND

EMPHASIZED THE NEED FOR FAIRNESS AND TRANSPARENCY IN
CIVIL SERVICES.
6 UPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH SC OBSERVED THAT THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONS ARE
CASE (2009) BECOMING VICTIMS OF SPOILS SYSTEM. EVEN APPOINTMENTS
AND EXITS OF GOVERNORS WITH CHANGES IN POLITICAL
DYNAMICS IS AN INDICATION OF A SHIFT TOWARDS SPOILS
SYSTEM IN CONSTITUTIONAL POSTS.
7 SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY V. STRUCK DOWN THE 'SINGLE DIRECTIVE' PROVISION, ALLOWING

DIRECTOR, CENTRAL THE CBI TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS WITHOUT HIGH-LEVEL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION PERMISSION, ENHANCING INVESTIGATIVE INDEPENDENCE IN
CASE (2014) CORRUPTION CASES.
INTERNAL SECURITY
1 MOHAMMAD A PETITION CHALLENGING THE DEPORTATION OF ROHINGYA

SALIMULLAH CASE MUSLIMS WHO HAD TAKEN REFUGE IN INDIA TO ESCAPE
(2018) PERSECUTION IN MYANMAR WAS FILED. HOWEVER, COURT IN AN
INTERIM ORDER REJECTED ANY RELIEF AND ALLOWED THEIR
DEPORTATION SUBJECT TO PROPER PROCEDURE BEING FOLLOWED.
COURT OBSERVED THAT, "THE RIGHT NOT TO BE DEPORTED, IS
ANCILLARY OR CONCOMITANT TO THE RIGHT TO RESIDE OR SETTLE
IN ANY PART OF THE TERRITORY OF INDIA GUARANTEED UNDER
ARTICLE 19(1)(E)", AND THAT SUCH A RIGHT IS ONLY AVAILABLE
TO ITS CITIZENS.

2 NAGA PEOPLE’S THIS JUDGMENT SCRUTINIZED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
MOVEMENT OF HUMAN ARMED FORCES (SPECIAL POWERS) ACT (AFSPA), A
RIGHTS CASE (1998) CONTROVERSIAL LAW GRANTING SPECIAL POWERS TO THE ARMED
FORCES IN DISTURBED AREAS.
3 KARTAR SINGH CASE THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF
(1994) THE TERRORIST AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT
(TADA), WHILE EMPHASIZING THE NEED TO BALANCE SUCH LAWS
WITH FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
4 PUCL V. UNION OF ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF FAKE ENCOUNTERS BY POLICE AND

INDIA CASE (2004) SECURITY FORCES, EMPHASIZING THE NEED FOR ACCOUNTABILITY
AND THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS EVEN IN THE CONTEXT OF
COMBATING TERRORISM.
5 ARUP BHUYAN CASE HELD THAT MERE MEMBERSHIP IN A BANNED ORGANIZATION DOES
(2011) NOT MAKE ONE A CRIMINAL UNLESS HE RESORTS TO VIOLENCE OR
INCITES PEOPLE TO VIOLENCE.
6 RAM JETHMALANI CASE FOCUSED ON BLACK MONEY STASHED IN FOREIGN BANKS, THIS
(2011) CASE HAS IMPLICATIONS FOR ECONOMIC SECURITY AND THE FIGHT
AGAINST CORRUPTION, A KEY ASPECT OF INTERNAL SECURITY.
7 BHARAT SHANTI LAL THE SUPREME COURT ELUCIDATED ON THE LEGALITY OF TELEPHONE
SHAH CASE (2008) TAPPING UNDER THE INDIAN TELEGRAPH ACT, BALANCING
INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY WITH THE NEEDS OF STATE SECURITY.
8 FACEBOOK CASE SIGNIFICANT FOR ADDRESSING ISSUES RELATED TO THE

(2019) TRACEABILITY OF MESSAGES ON SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS AND
THE TENSION BETWEEN PRIVACY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT.
9 WHATSAPP THIS CASE DEALT WITH THE CHALLENGES OF BALANCING PRIVACY

TRACEABILITY CASE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF TRACEABILITY OF
(2020) MESSAGES ON PLATFORMS LIKE WHATSAPP.
10 DHARAMRAJ THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF SOCIAL

BHANUSHANKAR DAVE MEDIA MISUSE, UNDERLINING THE NECESSITY OF RESPONSIBLE
CASE (2015) USE OF PLATFORMS LIKE FACEBOOK AND WHATSAPP,
PARTICULARLY IN THE CONTEXT OF SPREADING RUMORS AND
INCITING VIOLENCE.

11 GANESH NAIDU CASE DISCUSSED THE REGULATORY CHALLENGES AND LEGAL STATUS OF
(2019) CRYPTOCURRENCIES IN INDIA, HIGHLIGHTING THE EVOLVING
NATURE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION IN THE DIGITAL ERA.
12 INTERNET AND MOBILE THE SUPREME COURT SET ASIDE THE RBI CIRCULAR THAT BARRED
ASSOCIATION OF INDIA BANKS FROM DEALING IN CRYPTOCURRENCIES, MARKING A
CASE (2020) SIGNIFICANT RULING THAT RECOGNIZED THE LEGITIMACY OF
CRYPTOCURRENCIES IN INDIA'S FINANCIAL SYSTEM.
13 HASAN ALI KHAN CASE THIS CASE INVOLVED ALLEGATIONS OF MASSIVE MONEY
(2011) LAUNDERING, AND THE SUPREME COURT'S OBSERVATIONS
HIGHLIGHTED THE SERIOUSNESS WITH WHICH SUCH OFFENSES
ARE TO BE TREATED.
14 ABDUL KARIM TELGI IN THE INFAMOUS STAMP PAPER SCAM CASE, THIS JUDGMENT
CASE (2007) UNDERLINED THE EXTENT AND COMPLEXITY OF ORGANIZED CRIME
AND ITS IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY.
15 SUSHILA SAWANT CASE ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF PIRACY AND PROTECTION OF

(2014) SEAFARERS, UNDERLINING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF INTERNATIONAL
MARITIME SECURITY LAWS.
16 SEAMAN GUARD OHIO THE MADRAS HIGH COURT ACQUITTED THE CREW OF THE MV
CASE (2017) SEAMAN GUARD OHIO, ARRESTED FOR CARRYING ARMS IN INDIAN
WATERS, HIGHLIGHTING ISSUES OF MARITIME SECURITY, ARMS
REGULATION, AND ANTI-PIRACY OPERATIONS.


Important Supreme Court Judgements - Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Important Supreme Court Judgements - Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Important Supreme Court Judgements - Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prakhar Mentor Guided Evaluation Plan

Telegram YouTube Website

Telegram YouTube Website

7 JOSEPH SHINE CASE DECRIMINALIZED ADULTERY BY STRIKING DOWN SECTION 497

9 VINEETA SHARMA V. CLARIFIED THE RIGHTS OF DAUGHTERS TO ANCESTRAL

Telegram YouTube Website

11 LAXMI CASE (2014) ADDRESSED ACID ATTACKS ON WOMEN, LEADING TO

13 CEHAT CASE (2003) FOCUSED ON THE PROHIBITION OF SEX-SELECTIVE ABORTIONS

14 MEDICAL TERMINATION OF AFFIRMED A WOMAN'S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS AND AUTONOMY

15 INDEPENDENT THOUGHT CRIMINALIZED SEX WITH A MINOR WIFE, MARKING A

17 DELHI DOMESTIC RECOGNIZED THE RIGHTS OF DOMESTIC WORKERS AND LAID

19 PEOPLE'S UNION FOR HIGHLIGHTED THE EXPLOITATION OF WOMEN CONSTRUCTION

Telegram YouTube Website

23 INDRA SARMA V. VKV RECOGNIZED THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN IN LIVE-IN

24 HADIYA CASE (2018) THE SUPREME COURT EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF

Telegram YouTube Website

2 VELLORE CITIZENS THE SUPREME COURT ADOPTED THE 'PRECAUTIONARY

3 M.C. MEHTA (1988) - RECOGNIZED THE PRINCIPLE OF 'ABSOLUTE LIABILITY' FOR

6 NARMADA BACHAO ADDRESSED THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND REHABILITATION

7 T.N. GODAVARMAN EXPANDED THE DEFINITION OF 'FOREST' UNDER THE FOREST

Telegram YouTube Website

11 RESEARCH FOUNDATION THE SUPREME COURT BANNED THE IMPORT OF HAZARDOUS

Telegram YouTube Website

20 SHRIMP CULTURE CASE ADDRESSED THE IMPACT OF SHRIMP FARMING ON THE

Telegram YouTube Website

3 UNNIKRISHNAN JP EXPANDED THE SCOPE OF THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION, DECLARING

4 SAHNGOO RAM ARYA THIS JUDGMENT RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT OF CHILDREN TO

8 LAXMIKANT PANDEY THE SUPREME COURT PROVIDED COMPREHENSIVE GUIDELINES

Telegram YouTube Website

2 ST. XAVIER'S COLLEGE AFFIRMED THE RIGHT OF MINORITY INSTITUTIONS TO ADMINISTER

Telegram YouTube Website

6 ARUNA ROY CASE CHALLENGED THE INTRODUCTION OF RELIGIOUS CONTENT IN THE

7 PRAMATI EDUCATIONAL HELD THAT MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ARE EXEMPT

Telegram YouTube Website

3 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIS CASE EXPANDED THE DEFINITION OF 'FOREST', IMPACTING

5 NARMADA BACHAO ADDRESSED THE DISPLACEMENT OF TRIBAL COMMUNITIES DUE TO

7 RURAL LITIGATION AND KNOWN AS THE DEHRADUN VALLEY LITIGATION CASE, IT

Telegram YouTube Website

2 NATIONAL LEGAL RECOGNIZED THE RIGHTS OF TRANSGENDER PEOPLE, GRANTING

3 NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR DECRIMINALIZED HOMOSEXUALITY BY STRIKING DOWN SECTION

Telegram YouTube Website

2 MALIMATH COMMITTEE THOUGH NOT A COURT CASE, THE MALIMATH COMMITTEE'S

3 INDEPENDENT THOUGHT CRIMINALIZED SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A MINOR WIFE,

Telegram YouTube Website

6 REVANASIDDAPPA V. RECOGNIZED THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN BORN OUT OF LIVE-IN

7 GAURAV SURESHBHAI THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT'S OBSERVATION ON LIVE-IN

Telegram YouTube Website

3 UNNIKRISHNAN JP DECLARED THAT THE RIGHT TO BASIC EDUCATION IS A

4 RAJBALA CASE (2015) THIS JUDGMENT EXAMINED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF

5 CONSUMER EDUCATION UPHELD THE RIGHT TO HEALTH AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT,

Telegram YouTube Website

10 ARUNA SHANBAUG DISCUSSED THE LEGALITY OF PASSIVE EUTHANASIA, RAISING

12 COMMON CAUSE V. ADDRESSED THE RIGHT TO DIE WITH DIGNITY, BRINGING IN

13 PUCL V. UNION OF THE SUPREME COURT’S ORDERS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF

14 SHANTISTAR BUILDERS RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT TO SHELTER AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

15 NAWAB KHAN GULAB UPHELD THE RIGHTS OF PAVEMENT DWELLERS, ACKNOWLEDGING

16 INDIAN BANKS’ THE SUPREME COURT’S DIRECTIVES ON LOAN WAIVER SCHEMES