Supreme Court Judgments

Supreme Court Judgments Ready Reckoner
www.laexias.com Page 1 elearn.laex.in

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS

READY RECKONER
INDEX
Sl. No. Topic Page No.

1. Constitutional Provisions Related Judgements 1–9
2. Judiciary Related 10 – 10
3. Death Penalty Related Judgements 11 – 12
4. Indian Society Related 13 – 18
5. Voting Rights Related 19 – 21
6. Reservations Related 22 – 25
7. Law And Order Related 26 – 27
8. Rti Related 28 – 28
9. Environment Related 29 – 29
10. Miscellaneous Cases 30 - 31

SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS
S.
Case Judgement
No.
Constitutional Provisions Related
Theme : Right to life

 SC contented that there was no violation
of Fundamental Rights enshrined in Articles
A.K. Gopalan vs The State
1. 13, 19, 21 and 22 under the provisions of the
Of Madras(1950)
Preventive Detention Act, if the detention was
as per the procedure established by law. Here,
the SC took a narrow view of Article 21.
Theme : Freedom of speech and expression

 SC ruled that freedom of speech lay at the
foundation of all democratic organisations.
 The full court ruled that the imposition of pre-
censorship on a journal is a restriction on the
liberty of the press, which is an essential part
of the right to freedom of speech and
Romesh Thapar v State of
2. expression under Article 19 (1)(a).
Madras (1950)
 It said the freedom of speech and expression
is one of the most valuable rights guaranteed
to a citizen by the Constitution and should be
jealously guarded by the courts. The verdict
added that free political discussion is essential
for the proper functioning of a democratic
government.
Theme : Sedition Law

 The Supreme Court of India upheld the
constitutional validity of the provisions of the
Indian Penal Code that penalized sedition.
 Kedar Nath Singh had been convicted for
Kedar Nath Singh vs State sedition and inciting public mischief because
3.
Of Bihar (1962) of a speech in which he criticized the
government and advocated for the Forward
Communist Party.
 The Court reasoned that the penalization of
sedition is a constitutionally valid restriction
on the right to freedom of expression only

when the words are intended to disturb public

peace by violence.
 The Court emphasized that the phrase
“Government established by law” under
section 124A must be distinguished from
criticism of a specific party or persons.
Theme : Amendability of Fundamental Rights

 This case dealt with the amendability of
Fundamental Rights (the First Amendment’s
Shankari Prasad Singh
validity was challenged). The SC contended
4. Deo v. Union of India
that the Parliament’s power to amend under
(1951)
Article 368 also includes the power to amend
the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III
of the Constitution.
Theme : Article 3 related

 Case was regarding the Parliament’s power to
transfer the territory of Berubai to Pakistan.
 The Supreme Court examined Article 3 in
Berubari Union case
5. detail and held that the Parliament cannot
(1960)
make laws under this article in order to
execute the Nehru-Noon agreement. Hence,
the 9th Amendment Act was passed to enforce
the agreement.
Theme: Right to Property - is it a Fundamental

Right?
● Supreme Court ruled that Parliament doesn’t
have the power to restrict any of the
Fundamental Rights enshrined in the
Constitution.
● Hence, State of Punjab couldn’t take away
Golaknath Vs State of Golaknath or any other citizen’s land as Right
6.
Punjab (1967) to Property was deemed to be fundamental.
● Beginning with its ruling in GOLAKNATH, the
Court developed jurisprudence around what
was known as the basic structure doctrine.
● According to this doctrine, the Court was in
charge of preventing the erosion of those
enduring values that constitute the essence of
constitutionalism.

Theme : Ordinance making power

● The ordinance making power of the president
can be questioned if his satisfaction can be
questioned on the grounds of malafide.
DC Wadhwa case 1987

● Court held that re promulgation of ordinances
Rustom Cavasjee Cooper
with the same text, without giving any chance
7. vs Union Of India - 1970
to house to pass it, would amount to a
violation of the constitution and can be struck
down.
Krishna Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar 2017

● SC ruled that ordinances are subject to
judicial review, and do not automatically
create enduring effects.
Theme : Basic structure of the Constitution

● Declared that Article 31C of the constitution
which was inserted by 24th Constitutional
amendment to give unrestricted powers to
parliament in enacting a law which is against
Kesavananda Bharati vs judicial review.
8. State of Kerala Case ● SC felt that judicial review is the basic
(1973) structure of the constitution and is in
amendable even under Article 368
● It opened the floodgates for interpretation of
what constitutes the basic structure of the
constitution which is discussed over many
cases.
Theme: Expansion of rights under Article 21

● The Court reiterated that the term ‘personal
liberty’ is of “the widest amplitude and it
covers a variety of rights which go to
constitute the personal liberty of a man.”
Maneka Gandhi vs UoI ● And some of those rights have been raised to
9.
Case (1978) the status of distinct fundamental rights and
given additional protection under Article 19.
● SC held that - ‘Procedure established by law’
within the meaning of Article 21 must be ‘right
and just and fair’ and ‘not arbitrary, fanciful
or oppressive’ otherwise, it would be no

procedure at all and the requirement of Article

21 would not be satisfied.
● Thus the ‘procedure established by law’ has
acquired the same significance in India as the
‘due process of law’ clause in America.
Theme: Basic Structure of the Constitution

● The validity of 42nd amendment Act was
challenged on the ground that they are
destructive of the ‘basic structure’ of the
Constitution
Minerva Mill vs Union of ● SC said that a limited amending power itself is
10.
India (1980) a basic feature of the Constitution.
● SC ruled that Fundamental Rights and the
Directive Principles are required to be viewed
as the two sides of the same coin. Both should
be complementary to each other and there
should be no confrontation between them.
Theme: Centre state Relations

● Supreme Court issued the historic order,
which in a way put an end to the arbitrary
dismissal of State governments under Article
356 by spelling out restrictions.
● The verdict concluded that the power of the
President to dismiss a State government is not
S R Bommai vs Union of absolute.
11.
India (1994) ● The verdict said the President should exercise
the power only after his proclamation
(imposing his/her rule) is approved by both
Houses of Parliament.
● Till then, the Court said, the President can
only suspend the Legislative Assembly by
suspending the provisions of the Constitution
relating to the Legislative Assembly.
Theme: Basic Structure Doctrine vs

9 Schedule provisions
th
 The judgement in this case put an end to the

I.R. Coelho vs State of
12. politico-legal controversy by holding the
Tamil Nadu (2007)
Parliament’s amending power subject to
Judicial Review in line with Keshavananda
Bharti’s case judgement that the violation of

Doctrine of Basic Structure will never be

tolerated.
 The judgment in I.R. Coelho vigorously
reaffirms the doctrine of basic structure.
 Indeed it has gone further and held that a
constitutional amendment which entails
violation of any fundamental rights which the
Court regards as forming part of the basic
structure of the Constitution then the same
can be struck down depending upon its
impact and consequences.
 This 2007 judgement has already upheld
authority of judiciary to review any law
including those that have been placed under
the 9th Schedule of the Indian Constitution.
Theme: Right to die with dignity & Article 21

● Supreme Court of India has held that right to
die with dignity is a fundamental right. The
Bench also held that passive euthanasia and a
living will also legally valid.
● The Court has issued detailed guidelines in
this regard. “The right to life and liberty as
Common Cause vs UoI envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution
(2013) Aka Aruna is meaningless unless it encompasses within
13. Shanbaug Case - Right to its sphere individual dignity. With the passage
die with dignity = of time, this Court has expanded the spectrum
Fundamental Right of Article 21 to include within it the right to
live with dignity as component of right to life
and liberty”.
● The Bench also held that the right to live with
dignity also includes the smoothing of the
process of dying in case of a terminally ill
patient or a person in a Persistent vegetative
state with no hope of recovery.
Theme: Freedom of Speech online

● The SC declared Section 66A of IT Act as
unconstitutional and struck it down.
Shreya Singhal vs UoI
14. ● The court said such a law, which was often
(2015) Freedom of Speech
misused by police in various states to arrest
innocent persons for posting critical
comments about social and political issues

and leaders on social networking sites, hit at

the root of liberty and freedom of expression,
the two cardinal pillars of democracy.
Theme - Separation of Powers

● NJAC was a proposed body which would have
been responsible for the appointment and
transfer of judges to the higher judiciary in
India instead of the current practice of the
collegium system..
● On 16 October 2015, the Constitution Bench
of the Supreme Court by 4:1 Majority upheld
National Judicial the collegium system and struck down the
15. Appointments NJAC as unconstitutional after hearing the
Commission Case (2015) petitions filed by several persons and bodies
with Supreme Court Advocates on Record
Association (SCAoRA) being the first and lead
petitioner.
● Justices J. S. Khehar, Madan Lokur, Kurian
Joseph and Adarsh Kumar Goel had declared
the 99th Amendment and NJAC Act
unconstitutional while Justice Chelameswar
upheld it.
Theme: Privacy and Fundamental Rights

● The Judgement holds that the right to privacy
is protected as a fundamental constitutional
right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution of India.
● Unanimously held that “the right to privacy is
protected as an intrinsic part of the right to
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy
16. life and personal liberty under Article 21 and
(Retd) vs UoI (2017)
as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part
III of the Constitution”.
● It explicitly overrules previous judgements of
the Supreme Court in Kharak Singh vs State
of UP and M.P Sharma vs Union of India,
which had held that there is no fundamental
right to privacy under the Indian Constitution.
Theme: Aadhar and Right to Privacy

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy
17.  Supreme Court on September 26, 2018 ruled
(Retd) vs UoI (2017)
that Aadhaar was constitutional but making it

mandatory for availing government services

was unconstitutional.
 So, while Aadhaar-PAN linking is mandatory,
banks and telecom companies cannot ask
people to link their bank accounts and mobile
numbers with Aadhaar. This is
unconstitutional.
 The bench termed the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act (PMLA) Rules as well as the
notification issued by the Department of
Telecommunications (DoT) in this regard as
unconstitutional.
 It also means that banks and mobile phone
companies can't anymore insist on Aadhaar
number to verify your details when you seek a
new connection or open a new bank account.
Theme: Internet freedom / Freedom of

expression online
 Supreme Court ordered the respondents,
Google, Microsoft and Yahoo to ‘auto-block’
Sabu Mathew George vs
18. advertisements relating to sex selective
Union Of India (2017)
determination.
 They also ordered the creation of a ‘nodal
agency’ that would provide search engines
with the details of websites to block.
Theme: Federalism
● In this landmark verdict that came as a shot
in the arm for the Arvind Kejriwal-led AAP
government in its tussle with Lieutenant
Governor Anil Baijal for control of Delhi, a
five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Power tussle between Court ruled that decisions of the elected
Delhi Government and Lt. government of Delhi do not require the
19.
Governor - Govt of NCT of concurrence of the Lt Governor who only
Delhi vs UoI - 2018 needs to be informed.
● Calling for Constitutional pragmatism and
underlining the clear separation of powers, the
bench made it clear that “the status of the
Lieutenant Governor of Delhi is not that of a
Governor of a State, rather he remains an
Administrator, in a limited sense, working

with the designation of Lieutenant Governor”.
Theme : Fundamental right

 In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on
Friday said that access to the Internet is a
fundamental right under Article 19 of the
Constitution, and asked the Jammu and
Kashmir administration to review within a
week all orders imposing curbs in the Union
Anuradha Bhasin vs Union
Territory.
of India (2020)
 Section 144 CrPC (Prohibitory Orders) cannot
20. be used indefinitely to suppress freedom of
(Also in FaheemaShirin vs
speech and expression and difference of
State of Kerala , had same
opinion.
judgement)
 The bench said access to Internet is a
fundamental right under Article 19 of the
Constitution, subject to some restrictions and
said freedom of press is a valuable and sacred
right. It said magistrates, while passing
prohibitory orders, should apply their mind
and follow doctrine of proportionality.
Farmer protests and Right

Theme: Right to protest
to protest (2020)
 The bench declared that: Farmers have right
(Writ petitions were filed in
to protest but they cannot keep roads blocked
the Supreme Court by few
21. indefinitely. You may have a right to agitate in
NCR residents seeking the
any manner but roads should not be blocked
removal of the protesters
like this. People have right to go on roads but
who were camping at Delhi-
it cannot be blocked.
NCR borders)
Theme: Fundamental Right To Life

unconditionally embraces even an undertrial
Kerala Union of Working
 While deciding a petition seeking release of
22. Journalists v. Union of
Kerala journalist SidiqueKappan, the Supreme
India
Court held that the fundamental right to life is
available to undertrial prisoners as well

JUDICIARY RELATED
S.
Case Judgment
No.
Theme: Transparency in Judicial Proceedings

● Sunlight is the best disinfectant," said the
Supreme Court bench and ordered live-
streaming and video recording of the court
Judicial Proceedings - proceedings yesterday, September 26, 2018.
23. Swapnil Tripathi vs SC - ● Supreme Court said live streaming of court
2018 proceedings will bring transparency.
● The Supreme Court said that live streaming
would bring in more transparency in judicial
proceedings and effectuate the "public right to
know".
Theme: Gram Nayalayas

 The Supreme Court has directed all the states
to come out with notifications for establishing
‘Gram Nyayalayas’ within a month and has
National Federation Of asked the High Courts to expedite process of
Societies For Fast Justice consultation with state governments on this
24.
&Anr. Vs. Union of India issue.
(2020)  The bench noted that certain states including
Haryana, Gujarat, Uttarakhand, WestBengal,
Telangana, Odisha and Chhattisgarh have not
yet filed their affidavits on the issue despite
the court’s direction last year.
Theme: Freedom of press relating to Court

proceedings
The Chief Election
 The Court held that freedom of speech and
25. Commissioner of India v.
expression also extends to reporting the
MR Vijayabhaskar (2021)
proceedings that happen in courts including
oral observations made by judges.

DEATH PENALTY RELATED JUDGMENTS
S.
Case Judgment
No.
The Supreme Court, in Bachan Singh v. State of

Punjab 1980, had laid down that life imprisonment
is the rule and death sentence is an exception and
thus, certain guidelines should be followed before a
court may award death penalty:
1. Only in the gravest cases of extreme
culpability, this extreme penalty of death may
be awarded;
Bachan Singh v. State of
26. 2. The circumstances of the offender along with
Punjab(1980)
the circumstances of the crime have to be
taken into consideration.
3. When the sentence of life imprisonment seems
inadequate having regard to the nature and
circumstances of the crime, only then death
sentence may be awarded; and
4. The aggravating and the mitigating
circumstances have to be balanced
Supreme Court had held that in the rarest of rare

cases, when the collective conscience of the
Machhi Singh And Others
27. community is so shocked that it will expect the
vs State Of Punjab(1983)
holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death
penalty, then death penalty may be sanctioned.
Theme : Delay in execution of Death penalty

 The undue delay by President in rejecting
mercy to a death row convict amounts to
torture.
 Such inordinate and unexplained delay by the
Shatrughan Chauhan vs President is sufficient in itself to entitle the
28.
UOI (2014) convict to a commutation.
 The court had refused to fix a certain number
of years above which undue delay would
amount to torture.
 The crime in question is irrelevant while
deciding the effects of keeping a death row

prisoner waiting for a decision on his or her

mercy petition.
 The suffering that comes with anticipating
death on an everyday basis for the judges
amounted to torture, which was violative of the
Right to life under Article 21 of the
Constitution.

INDIAN SOCIETY RELATED
S.
Case Judgment
No.
Theme: Secularism and Uniform Civil Code

● Shah Bano filed a case in the Supreme court
against her husband asking him for a
maintenance amount for herself and her
children after her triple talaq divorce.
MA Khan vs Shah Bano ● Under the Islamic law she was eligible for only
29.
Case (1985) one time maintenance of 5400
● The SC decided it in favour of Shah Bano
using secular criminal procedure code
regardless of religion.
● This was a step towards the implementation of
Uniform Civil Code.
Theme: Women’s Issues

● SC mentioned that its the duty of the employer
and other at work to prevent or deter possible
acts of sexual harassment
● Provided the Procedure for resolution,
Vishaka and Others vs
30. settlement or prosecution
State of Rajasthan (1997)
● Provided for a range of behaviour which can be
termed as sexual harassment
● Mandated to create Complaints committee
● SC gave details regarding constitution and
working of Complaints committee
Theme : Minority institutions

 The TMA Pai Foundation was a landmark 11-
judge order which laid down the contours of
governmental regulations on private
institutions and still occupies the education
Dr. T.M.A Pai Foundation
field in so far as the constitutionality of
31. V. State Of Karnataka
statutes and regulations is concerned.
(2002)
 The right under Article 30(1) is not absolute or
above the law”
 The essence of Article 30(1) was “to ensure
equal treatment between the majority and the
minority institutions” and that rules and

regulations would apply equally to majority

and minority institutions.
 Maximum latitude must be given to
management of minority institutions that
directly aim to preserve their special religious
and linguistic characteristics but for those
minority institutions imparting purely secular
education such as Physics, Chemistry, etc,
excellence is of paramount importance.
Theme: Vulnerable sections - LGBT

 It is a 2013 case in which a 2 judge Supreme
Court bench overturned the Delhi High Court
case Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
which upheld Section 377 of the Indian Penal
Code - which criminazlied consensual
homosexual sex between adults.
SK Koushal v Naz  The Supreme Court of India decided to revisit
32. foundation case 377 this judgement after several curative petitions
(2013) were filed against it, in 2017.
 The Supreme Court today decriminalised
consensual adult sex saying sexual
orientation is natural and people have no
control on it.
 But portions of Section 377 relating to sex
with minors, non-consensual sexual acts such
as rape, and bestiality remain in force.
Theme: Vulnerable Sections - Transgender

● It is a landmark decision by the Supreme
Court of India, which declared transgender
people to be a 'third gender', affirmed that the
fundamental rights granted under the
National Legal Services
Constitution of India will be equally applicable
Authority vs Union of
to transgender people.
India (2014)
33. ● It also gave them the right to self-identification
of their gender as male, female or third-
Transgender as ‘third
gender.
gender’
● Moreover, the court also held that because
transgender people were treated as socially
and economically backward classes, they will
be granted reservations in admissions to
educational institutions and jobs.

● This judgement is a major step towards gender

equality in India.
Prakash v Phulwati (2015)

 A two-judge Bench headed by Justice A K Goel
held that the benefit of the 2005 amendment
could be granted only to “living daughters of
living coparceners” as on September 9, 2005
(the date when the amendment came into
force).
Note: In February 2018, contrary to the 2015

ruling, a two-judge Bench headed by Justice A
K Sikri held that the share of a father who
died in 2001 will also pass to his daughters as
coparceners during the partition of the
property as per the 2005 law.
 Then in April that year, yet another two-judge

bench, headed by Justice R K Agrawal,
The Hindu Succession reiterated the position taken in 2015.
(Amendment) Act, 2005  These conflicting views by Benches of equal
34. strength led to a reference to a three-judge
Related
Bench in 2020
Batch of appeals against the 2015 verdict

(2020) 3 judge bench headed by Justice Arun
Mishra
 A three-judge Bench headed by Justice Arun
Mishra ruled that a Hindu woman’s right to be
a joint heir to the ancestral property is by
birth and does not depend on whether her
father was alive or not when the law was
enacted in 2005.
 The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005
gave Hindu women the right to be coparceners
or joint legal heirs in the same way a male heir
does. “Since the coparcenary is by birth, it is
not necessary that the father coparcener
should be living as on 9.9.2005,” the ruling
said.

Theme: LGBT community

● In this landmark verdict, the Supreme Court
today scrapped the controversial Section 377–
a 158-year-old colonial law on consensual gay
sex.
● The Supreme Court reversed its own decision
and said Section 377 is irrational and
Navtej Singh Johar vs
35. arbitary. “LGBT Community has same rights
Union of India (2017)
as of any ordinary citizen. Respect for
individual choice is the essence of liberty;
LGBT community possesses equal rights
under the constitution. Criminalising gay sex
is irrational and indefensible,” said Chief
Justice Dipak Misra, who headed the five
judge bench hearing the case.
Theme: Gender Equality vs Freedom of Religion

● The Supreme Court declared, by a majority of
3:2 that divorce through instant triple talaq
among Muslims would be "void", "illegal" and
"unconstitutional". This judgment has the
effect of law.
Triple TalaqShayaraBano
36. ● Three of the five judges in the panel concurred
Case (2017)
that the practice of triple talaq is
unconstitutional.
● The remaining two declared the practice to be
constitutional while simultaneously asking the
government to ban the practice by enacting a
law.
Theme : Cow Vigantalism

 Preventive Measures: State Governments
should appoint nodal officers, directions are
given for their functioning, police should
disperse mobs under S.129 of CrPc, initiate
FIRs under S.153A of IPC, Central and State
Tehseen S. Poonawalla V
37. governments should stop spread of
Union Of India (2018)
information and broadcast the serious
consequences of law for lynching and mob
violence.
 Remedial Measures: In case of any incidents,
FIRs should be filed, and the Nodal officer
informed, effective processing through fast

track courts, victim compensation scheme and

free legal aid.
 Punitive Measures: Departmental action
should be taken against officers who do not
comply with the above measures as it will be
seen as a case of misconduct or negligence
and the action to be taken should reach a
conclusion within six months.
 The Court, gave a recommendation to the
Parliament to constitute a separate offence for
lynching with adequate punishment.
Theme: Freedom of religion vs Gender equality.

● On September 28, a five-judge Constitution
bench, headed by the then CJI Dipak Misra, in
a 4:1 verdict had paved the way for entry of
women of all ages into the shrine, saying the
ban amounted to gender discrimination.
● The court ruled that - We have no hesitation
in saying that such an exclusionary practice
Indian Young Lawyers
violates the right of women to visit and enter a
Association vs State of
temple to freely practice Hindu religion and to
Kerala (2018)
38. exhibit her devotion towards Lord Ayyappa.
The denial of this right to women significantly
Women can now enter
denudes them of their right to worship.
Sabarimala
● Court observed that the custom of barring
women was in violation of Article 25 (Clause 1)
and Rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of
Worship.
● Dissenting view: Indu Malhotra said that every
individual should be allowed to practice their
faith irrespective of whether the practice is
rational or logical.
Theme: Protection for Vulnerable Sections

● In 2018, the Supreme Court had diluted the
law’s provisions and had said public servants
cannot be arrested immediately after a
SC/ST Act 1989 - SC
39. complaint is filed against them under the law.
Judgement (2018)
● It also allowed for anticipatory bail which
wasn’t the case in the SC/ST Act 1989.
● However, the Parliament passed an
amendment bill in August 2018 to reverse the

verdict.
Theme: Adultery is not a crime

 The Supreme Court unanimously struck down
a 150-year-old law that considered adultery to
be an offence committed against a married
man by another man. Defined under Section
497 of the IPC, adultery law came under sharp
Adultery 2018 SC criticism for treating women as possessions
Judgement - Joseph rather than human beings.
40.
Shine Vs Union of India  The Supreme Court declared Section 497 as
unconstitutional. Adultery is no longer a crime
but if it leads to someone committing suicide,
the act will be treated as a crime - abetment to
suicide.
 And while, Adultery is no longer a crime, but it
will continue to be grounds for divorce.
Theme : Women Empowerment

 The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment
The Secretary, Ministry of on 17 February, granted permanent
41. Defence Vs Babita Puniya commission to women officers in the Army
(2020) irrespective of their number of years of service.
The women officer-litigants had been fighting
the case for 14 years.
Theme: Guidelines drafted for Dowry Death

Trials
 The Court held that Section 304-B IPC must
Satbir Singh v. State of be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative
42.
Haryana intent to curb the social evil of bride burning
and dowry demand. The Bench, therefore, laid
down guidelines for Dowry Death trials in the
lower courts

VOTING RIGHTS RELATED
S.
Case Judgment
No.
Theme : Voter ‘s right to know

 The Court in dealing with the issue at hand
held that under the Indian Constitution,
electors had a fundamental right to know the
antecedents of candidates contesting elections
to hold public office.
 The court read in ‘right to be informed’ as a
right flowing from freedom of speech and
expression. The Election Commission was
Union of India v. directed to secure affidavits by candidates
Association for recording all particulars relating to past or
43.
Democratic Reforms pending criminal charges or cases against
(2002) them.
 This included information as to whether the
candidate was convicted/acquitted/discharged
of any criminal offence in the past.
 Additionally, if convicted, the quantum of
punishment that was awarded; and whether
prior to six months of filing of nomination, the
candidate was accused of an offence
punishable with minimum two years of
imprisonment.
Theme: Disqualifications of representatives and

Decriminalisation of Politics
● SC nullified section 8(4) of RPA which did not
disqualify convicts who are convicted for more
than 2 years if they appealed in 3 months.
● This gave an unfair advantage for
Lily Thomas case vs
44. representatives to proceed as a member in
spite of being convicted.
● SC court judgement ensured that any
representative who is convicted for more than
2 years stand disqualified for the sentence
term and till 6 years after the completion of
the sentence.

Theme: NOTA- Right of citizens to cast

negative vote
● Rule 49(O) of the conduct of Election Rules
1961 ensures that the presiding officer records
a voter has not voted in case if he doesn't want
to vote after he has been inked on the finger
People’s Union of Civil
and entered his name on Form17-A. This is
45. Liberties vs Union of
against the right to secrecy enshrined in the
India case (2013)
elections.
● SC held that Right to vote also includes a right
not to vote and remain neutral.
● Right to secrecy is the integral part of free and
fair elections. People who didn't vote shouldn't
be victimized.
Theme: Criminalisation of Politics

 SC directed political parties to publish the
criminal details of their candidates in their
respective websites and print as well as
electronic media for public awareness.
 The published information on the criminal
antecedents of a candidate should be detailed
and include the nature of their offences,
charges framed against him, the court
Public Interest
concerned, case number, etc.
46. Foundation v. Union of
 A political party should explain to the public
India (2018)
through their published material how the
“qualifications or achievements or merit” of a
candidate, charged with a crime, impressed it
enough to cast aside the smear of his criminal
background.
 A party would have to give reasons to the voter
that it was not the candidate’s “mere
winnability at the polls” which guided its
decision to give him ticket to contest elections.
Theme: Electoral bonds

 The 3-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and
Association for
Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ has
Democratic Reforms v.
47. directed all the political parties who have
received donations through Electoral Bonds to
submit,
 detailed particulars of the donors as against

each Bond;
 the amount of each such bond and the full
particulars of the credit received against each
bond, namely, the particulars of the bank
account to which the amount has been
credited and the date of each such creditto the
Election Commission of India in sealed cover
Theme: Criminalisation of politics

 The bench was delivering its verdict in the in
contempt petitions filed alleging failure to
publish criminal antecedents of candidates in
the Bihar Assembly elections held in
November 2020.
Brajesh Singhvs Sunil

48.
Arora& ORS (2020)
 The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed that

political parties must publish the criminal
antecedents, if any, of their candidates within
48 hours of their selection.

RESERVATIONS RELATED
S.
Case Judgment
No.
Theme: Reservations
● Backward class of citizens in Article 16(4) can
be identified on the basis of the caste system
& not only on economic basis.
● Article 16(4) is not an exception of Article
16(1). It is an instance of the classification.
Reservation can be made under article 16(1).
● Backward classes in Article 16(4) were not
similar to as socially & educationally
backward in article 15(4).
● Creamy layer must be excluded from the
backward classes.
● Article 16(4) permits classification of backward
classes into backward & more backward
classes.
Indira Sawhney vs Union
49. ● A backward class of citizens cannot be
of India case (1992 )
identified only & exclusively with reference to
economic criteria.
● Reservation shall not exceed 50%.
● Reservation can be made by the ‘EXECUTIVE
ORDER’.
● No reservation in promotion.
● Permanent Statutory body to examine
complaints of over – inclusion / under –
inclusion.
● Majority held that there is no need to express
any opinion on the correctness or adequacy of
the exercise done by the MANDAL
COMMISSION.
● Disputes regarding new criteria can be raised
only in the Supreme Court.
Theme : Reservations
M. Nagaraj vs Union of
 SC validated parliament’s decision to extend
50. India Case (2006)
reservations for SCs and STs to include
promotions with three riders.

 It required the state to provide proof for the

backwardness of the class benefitting from the
reservation, for its inadequate representation
in the position/service for which reservation in
promotion is to be granted and to show how
reservations in promotions would further
administrative efficiency.
Theme: Reservations / PwDs

 In a landmark case argued by the Disability
Law Initiative, the Supreme Court on 30th
June 2016 held as illegal the Government of
Rajeev Kumar Gupta &
India instructions disallowing reservation in
51. Ors vs Union Of India &
promotion for persons with disabilities, and
Ors (2016)
said that wherever posts are identified to be
suitable for disabled persons, 3% reservation
must be given in direct recruitment as well as
in promotion.
Theme: SC/ST Reservation

 As the Supreme Court has upheld reservation
in promotion for SC/ST communities, the
court’s position on the idea of a creamy layer
has put the political class in a dilemma
 So far creamy layer is applicable only for
SC/ST Reservation case OBCs seeking reservation. Last year, the
52. 2018 - Jarnail Singh vs LN creamy layer ceiling for OBC reservation was
Gupta raised to Rs 8 lakh per year — families with
income above this were not eligible
 How will a creamy layer apply to SC/STs is
uncharted territory. While the government
says it is still “examining”the judgment,
SC/ST groups are restive in a poll year that
has seen caste protests nationwide.
Theme: Reservations
 A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has
held that States can sub-classify Scheduled
Punjab v. Davinder Singh Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Central
53.
(2020) List to provide preferential treatment to the
“weakest out of the weak”.
 Sub-classifications within the Presidential/
Central List does not amount to “tinkering”

with it. No caste is excluded from the list. The

States only give preference to weakest of the
lot in a pragmatic manner based on statistical
data.
 It fully endorses the push to extend the
creamy layer concept to the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes.
 The judgment records that “Citizens cannot be
treated to be socially and educationally
backward till perpetuity; those who have come
up must be excluded like the creamy layer”.
Theme: Reservation for the Maratha

community
 A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao
struck down the Maratha reservation quota
Patil v. The Chief
54. and held there were no exceptional
Minister (2021)
circumstances justifying the grant of
reservation to Maratha community in excess
of 50 percent ceiling limit as laid down in
the Indra Sawhney judgment
Theme: OBC reservation cannot exceed 50

percent
The Supreme Court also laid down a triple test to

be complied with by the State before reserving
seats in local bodies for OBCs.
The three conditions prescribed are:

VikasKishan Rao Gawali v. (1) To set up a dedicated Commission to conduct
55. State of Maharashtra rigorous inquiry into the nature and
(2021) implications of the backwardness of local
bodies, within the State;
(2) To specify the proportion of reservation
required to be provisioned local body wise in
light of recommendations of the Commission;
and
(3) In any case such reservation shall not exceed
aggregate of 50% of the total seats reserved in
favour of SCs/STs/OBCs taken together
56. PravakarMallick&Anr v. Theme : Regarding reservation in promotions

State ofOrissa The Court followed the law laid down

in MNagaraj v. Union of India and reiterated
that the State is not bound to make
reservations for SCs/STs in matters of
promotion. However, if they wish to do so,
they have to collect quantifiable data showing
backwardness of the class and inadequacy of
representation of that class in public
employment, keeping in mind maintenance of
efficiency, as indicated by Article 335 of the
Constitution of India

LAW AND ORDER RELATED
S.
Case Judgment
No.
Theme : Prison Reforms

 Supreme Court identified nine issues
concerning prisons, such as overcrowding,
trials being delayed, the torture and ill-
Ramamurthy v. State of treatment of prisoners, neglect of health and
57.
Karnataka(1996) hygiene, insubstantial food and inadequate
clothing.
 Directed government to bring uniformity
nationally of prison laws and prepare a draft
model prison manual
Theme : Police reforms
 SC instructed central and state governments

to comply with a set of seven directives laying
down practical mechanisms to kick-start
reform.
 The Supreme Court referred to the
recommendations made by several committees
on police reforms and culled four requisite
Prakash Singh Vs Union of
58. points of reform:
India (2007)
1. State Security Commission at State level;
2. transparent procedure for the
appointment of Police Chief and the
desirability of giving him a minimum fixed
tenure
3. Separation of investigation work from law
and order
4. A new Police Act which should reflect the
democratic aspirations of the people
Theme: Dissent vs Law and Order

● A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court
BhimaKoregaon Arrest
refused to interfere in the arrests of five rights
59. verdict - RomilaThapar vs
activists in the Bhima-Koregaon violence case
UoI (2019)
in a 2:1 verdict.
● The activists — poet VaraVara Rao, lawyer

Sudha Bhardwaj, activists Arun Ferreira,

Vernon Gonsalves and GautamNavlakha —
were arrested by Maharashtra Police in cross-
country raids in connection with the Bhima-
Koregaon violence probe.
● The Supreme Court, however, extended the
house arrest of the activists. Justice
Chandrachud dissented with the majority
verdict.
Theme : Operation of AFSPA and Human rights

 Every death caused by the armed forces in a
disturbed area, whether the victim is a
dreaded criminal or a militant or a terrorist or
an insurgent, should be thoroughly enquired
into
 The verdict tears down the cloak of secrecy
about unaccounted deaths involving security
forces in disturbed areas and serves as a
judicial precedent to uphold civilian and
human rights in sensitive areas under military
Extra Judicial Execution control.
60. Victim vs Union Of India  The judgment came on a plea by hundreds of
And Ors (2018) families in the north-eastern State of Manipur
for a probe by a Special Investigation Team
into 1,528 cases of alleged fake encounters
involving the Army and the police.
 Dealing a blow to the immunity enjoyed by
security personnel under the Armed Forces
(Special Powers) Act of 1958 (AFSPA) against
criminal action for acts committed in
disturbed areas, the apex court held that
“there is no concept of absolute immunity
from trial by a criminal court” if an Army man
has committed an offence.

RTI RELATED
S.
Case Judgment
No.
Theme : RTI and Supreme court

 Chief Justice’s office is a “public authority”
within the meaning of the Right to
Information (RTI) Act as it performs numerous
administrative functions in addition to its
adjudicatory role. Access to information it
held was therefore regulated by the Act.
The CPIO, Supreme Court  The Court emphasized that information
61. of India v. Subhash pertaining to submitted declarations and their
Chandra Agarwal (2009) contents constitutes “information” within the
meaning of Section 2 (f) of the Act.
 The Court found that Section 8(1)(j) of the Act
indeed stipulated the exemption from
disclosure of personal information of a third
party on the ground of privacy. The exemption
applied irrespective of whether a third party
was a private individual or a public official.

ENVIRONMENT RELATED
S.
Case Judgment
No.
Theme: Air Pollution/Environment

● The SC banned the sale of fireworks days
ahead of Diwali on environmental grounds in
Ban on Diwali firecrackers view of severe pollution.
62.
in Delhi (2017) ● In 2018 October, Ruling out a blanket ban on
firecrackers in Delhi-National Capital Region,
the Supreme Court has permitted the sale of
‘green crackers’
Theme: Environment vs Tribal Rights

● The February 13, 2019 order of the Supreme
Court to several States to evict lakhs of
claimants finally rejected under the Forest
Rights Act (FRA) is an outcome of the
consistent stand taken by the top court in the
case since 2016 that encroachers should be
evicted from forest land after due process.
● On January 29, 2016, a three-judge Bench of
Justices J. Chelameswar (now retired), A.M.
Sapre and Amitava Roy (retired) held that “if
the claim is found to be not tenable by the
competent authority, the result would be that
Supreme Court’s Order on
63. the claimant is not entitled for the grant of
Forest Rights Act (2018)
any patta or any other right under the Act,
but such a claimant is also either required to
be evicted from that parcel of land or some
other action is to be taken in accordance with
law.”
● The Supreme Court on March 1st, 2019,
suspended the implementation of its
controversial February 13, 2019, order
directing states to evict around 2 million
forest-dwellers from forests after the tribal
affairs ministry pointed out that the process
of settling their claims and rights left a lot to
be desired.

MISCELLANEOUS CASES
S.
Case Judgment
No.
Theme: Deportation vs Refugee Rights

● The Supreme Court Thursday rejected the
plea to stop the deportation of seven Rohingya
immigrants to Myanmar from Assam.
● The bench rejected the plea saying that the
seven were found as illegal immigrants by the
court earlier and that Myanmar is also ready
to accept them as their nationals.“We are not
inclined to interfere on the decision taken,”
the apex court said.
Verdict on Rohingya
● The plea filed by two Rohingya immigrants
64. Crisis - Md. Salimullah
challenged the Centre’s decision to deport over
vs UoI (2018)
40,000 refugees who came to India after
escaping from Myanmar due to widespread
discrimination and violence against the
community.
● The fresh plea said that the decision to deport
was in “grave violation” of India’s international
obligation and moreover, the situation in
Myanmar was extremely dangerous for the
Rohingyas to return and they are likely to be
subjected to torture and even killed.
Theme: Cryptocurrency
 Famously known as the cryptocurrency
judgment, it is known for the Supreme Court’s
decision to lift the restrictions imposed by the
Internet and Mobile Reserve Bank of India on regulated entities
Association of India v. dealing with virtual currencies.
65. Reserve Bank of India  The court validated the ‘ground of
(2020) proportionality’ by setting aside the circular
issued by RBI preventing regulated entities
from providing banking services to those
engaged in the trading or facilitating the
trading in Virtual Currencies.
 The court observed that, ‘when the consistent

stand of RBI is that they have not banned VCs

and when the Government of India is unable
to take a call despite several
committees coming up with several proposals
including two draft bills, both of which
advocated exactly opposite positions, it is not
possible for us to hold that the impugned
measure is proportionate’

Supreme Court Judgments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supreme Court Judgments

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Supreme Court Judgments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supreme Court Judgments Ready Reckoner

www.laexias.com Page 1 elearn.laex.in

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS

Sl. No. Topic Page No.

www.laexias.com Page 2 elearn.laex.in

SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS

Constitutional Provisions Related

Theme : Right to life

Theme : Freedom of speech and expression

Theme : Sedition Law

www.laexias.com Page 4 elearn.laex.in

when the words are intended to disturb public

Theme : Amendability of Fundamental Rights

Theme : Article 3 related

Theme: Right to Property - is it a Fundamental

www.laexias.com Page 5 elearn.laex.in

Theme : Ordinance making power

DC Wadhwa case 1987

Krishna Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar 2017

Theme : Basic structure of the Constitution

Theme: Expansion of rights under Article 21

www.laexias.com Page 6 elearn.laex.in

procedure at all and the requirement of Article

Theme: Basic Structure of the Constitution

Theme: Centre state Relations

Theme: Basic Structure Doctrine vs

 The judgement in this case put an end to the

www.laexias.com Page 7 elearn.laex.in

Doctrine of Basic Structure will never be

Theme: Right to die with dignity & Article 21

Theme: Freedom of Speech online

www.laexias.com Page 8 elearn.laex.in

and leaders on social networking sites, hit at

Theme - Separation of Powers

Theme: Privacy and Fundamental Rights

Theme: Aadhar and Right to Privacy

www.laexias.com Page 9 elearn.laex.in

mandatory for availing government services

Theme: Internet freedom / Freedom of

www.laexias.com Page 10 elearn.laex.in

with the designation of Lieutenant Governor”.

Theme : Fundamental right

Farmer protests and Right

Theme: Fundamental Right To Life

www.laexias.com Page 11 elearn.laex.in

Theme: Transparency in Judicial Proceedings

Theme: Gram Nayalayas

Theme: Freedom of press relating to Court

www.laexias.com Page 12 elearn.laex.in

DEATH PENALTY RELATED JUDGMENTS

The Supreme Court, in Bachan Singh v. State of

Supreme Court had held that in the rarest of rare

Theme : Delay in execution of Death penalty

www.laexias.com Page 13 elearn.laex.in

prisoner waiting for a decision on his or her

www.laexias.com Page 14 elearn.laex.in

INDIAN SOCIETY RELATED

Theme: Secularism and Uniform Civil Code

Theme: Women’s Issues

Theme : Minority institutions