Case Year Relevance

SC contented that there was no violation of Fundamental Rights enshrined in Articles 13, 19, 21 and
A.K. Gopalan Case (1950) 1950 22 under the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act, if the detention was as per the procedure
established by law. Here, the SC took a narrow view of Article 21.
Here, the SC held that the freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas
Romesh Thapar Case (1950) 1950
that can only be ensured by circulation.
This case dealt with the amendability of Fundamental Rights (the First Amendment’s validity was
Shankari Prasad Case (1951) 1951 challenged). The SC contended that the Parliament’s power to amend under Article 368 also includes
the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution.
This case was regarding the Parliament’s power to transfer the territory of Berubai to Pakistan.
The Supreme Court examined Article 3 in detail and held that the Parliament cannot make laws under
Berubari Union case (1960) 1960
this article in order to execute the Nehru-Noon agreement. Hence, the 9th Amendment Act was
passed to enforce the agreement.
The questions in this case were whether amendment is a law; and whether Fundamental Rights can be
amended or not. SC contented that Fundamental Rights are not amenable to the Parliamentary
Golaknath case (1967) 1967 restriction as stated in Article 13, and that to amend the Fundamental rights a new Constituent
Assembly would be required. Also stated that Article 368 gives the procedure to amend the
Constitution but does not confer on Parliament the power to amend the Constitution.
This judgement defined the basic structure of the Constitution. The SC held that although no part of
the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, was beyond the Parliament’s amending power, the
Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) 1973 “basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment.” This
is the basis in Indian law in which the judiciary can strike down any amendment passed by Parliament
that is in conflict with the basic structure of the Constitution.
The SC applied the theory of basic structure and struck down Clause(4) of article 329-A, which was
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain
1975 inserted by the 39th Amendment in 1975 on the grounds that it was beyond the Parliament’s
case (1975)
amending power as it destroyed the Constitution’s basic features.
A much-criticised judgement of the SC, in which the majority ruling went against individual freedom
Habeas Corpus Case (1976) 1976
and seemed to favour the state. Justice Khanna’s dissent is also well-known.
A main issue in this case was whether the right to go abroad is a part of the Right to Personal Liberty
under Article 21. The SC held that it is included in the Right to Personal Liberty. The SC also ruled that
Maneka Gandhi case (1978) 1978
the mere existence of an enabling law was not enough to restrain personal liberty. Such a law must
also be “just, fair and reasonable.”
This case again strengthens the Basic Structure doctrine. The judgement struck down 2 changes made
Minerva Mills case (1980) 1980 to the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act 1976, declaring them to be violative of the basic
structure. The judgement makes it clear that the Constitution, and not the Parliament is supreme.
1973 i.e., the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgement, and held that it should not be applied
Waman Rao Case (1981) 1981 retrospectively to reopen the validity of any amendment to the Constitution which took place prior to
that date.
Milestone case for Muslim women’s fight for rights. The SC upheld the right to alimony for a Muslim
woman and said that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is applicable to all citizens irrespective of
Shah Bano Begum case (1985) 1985 their religion. This set off a political controversy and the government of the day overturned this
judgement by passing the Muslim Women (Protection on Divorce Act), 1986, according to which
alimony need be given only during the iddat period (in tune with the Muslim personal law).
This case dealt with 3 issues: Scope of Article 32; rule of Absolute Liability or Rylands vs Fletcher to be
followed; issue of compensation. SC held that its power under Article 32 is not restricted to preventive
MC Mehta and Union Of India measures, but also remedial measures when rights are violated. It also held that in the case of
1986
(1986) industries engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities, Absolute Liability was to be
followed. Finally, it also said that the amount of compensation must be correlated to the magnitude
and capacity of the industry so that it will be a deterrent.
 SC examined the scope and extent of Article 16(4), which provides for the reservation of jobs in favour
Indra Sawhney and Union of India of backward classes. It upheld the constitutional validity of 27% reservation for the OBCs with certain
1992
(1992) conditions (like creamy layer exclusion, no reservation in promotion, total reserved quota should not
exceed 50%, etc.)
In this judgement, the SC tried to curb the blatant misuse of Article 356 (regarding the imposition of
S. R. Bommai case (1994) 1994
President’s Rule on states).
This case dealt with sexual harassment at the workplace. In the judgement, the SC gave a set of
Vishaka and State of Rajasthan guidelines for employers – as well as other responsible persons or institutions – to immediately ensure
1997
(1997) the prevention of sexual harassment. These are called ‘Vishaka Guidelines’. These were to be
considered law until appropriate legislation was enacted.
This judgement nullified all mining leases granted by the Andhra Pradesh State government in the
Samatha and State of Andhra Scheduled areas and asked it to stop all mining operations. It declared that forest land, tribal land, and
1997
Pradesh (1997) government land in scheduled areas could not be leased to private companies or non-tribal for
industrial operations. Such activity is only permissible to a government undertaking and tribal people.
32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies) and 226 respectively is a part of the basic structure of the
L Chandra Kumar Case (1997) 1997
Constitution.
Here, the SC held that the second marriage of a Hindu man without divorcing the first wife, even if the
Lily Thomas v Union of India
2000 man had converted to Islam, is void unless the first marriage had been dissolved according to the
(2000)
Hindu Marriage Act.
This judgement held that if a law is included in the 9th Schedule of the Indian Constitution, it can still
be examined and confronted in court. The 9th Schedule of the Indian Constitution contains a list of
I.R Coelho and State of Tamil acts and laws which cannot be challenged in a court of law. The Waman Rao ruling ensured that acts
2007
Nadu 2007 and laws mentioned in the IX schedule till 24 April 1973, shall not be changed or challenged, but any
attempt to amend or add more acts to that schedule will suffer close inspection and examination by
the judiciary system.
The SC restored the conviction and sentence of 6-year (RI) rigorous imprisonment imposed on 2 UK
Pedophilia case (2011) 2011 nationals who were acquitted by the Bombay High Court in a paedophilia case. The court said that “the
sexual abuse of children is one of the most heinous crimes.”
The SC ruled that individuals had a right to die with dignity, allowing passive euthanasia with
Aruna Shanbaug Case (2011) 2011 guidelines. The need to reform India’s laws on euthanasia was triggered by the tragic case of Aruna
Shanbaug who lay in a vegetative state (blind, paralysed and deaf) for 42 years.
NOTA judgement (2013) 2013 This judgement introduced the NOTA (None-Of-The-Above) option for Indian voters.
Lily Thomas and Union Of India The SC ruled that any MLA, MLC or MP who was found guilty of a crime and given a minimum of 2 year
2013
(2013) imprisonment would cease to be a member of the House with immediate effect.
Introduction of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 and definition of rape under the Protection of
Nirbhaya Case (2014) 2014 Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Code of Criminal Procedures, 1973.
This case resulted in the recognition of transgender persons as a third gender. The SC also instructed
National Legal Services Authority
2014 the government to treat them as minorities and expand the reservations in education, jobs, education,
and Union of India (2014)
etc.
The SC outlawed the backward practice of instant ‘triple talaq’, which permitted Muslim men to
Triple Talaq Judgement (2016) 2016 unilaterally end their marriages by uttering the word “talaq” three times without making any provision
for maintenance or alimony. Read about the Triple Talaq Bill, 2019.
Right To Privacy (2017) 2017 The SC declared the right to privacy as a Fundamental Right protected under the Indian Constitution.
Puttuswamy Case (2017) 2017 This SC judgement protects individual rights against the invasion of one’s privacy.
The SC ruled that Section 377 was unconstitutional “in so far as it criminalises consensual sexual
Repealing Section 377 (2018) 2018
conduct between adults of the same sex.”