|
S. No.
|
Case Title
|
Why Important?
|
Relevant Articles
|
Judgment
|
|
1.
|
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
|
Established the Basic Structure Doctrine – Parliament can amend the Constitution, but not alter its basic structure.
|
Article 368 (amendment power), Articles 24, 31 (property rights), Preamble.
|
Parliament’s power to amend is wide, but cannot destroy essentials like rule of law, separation of powers, judicial review, fundamental rights.
|
|
2.
|
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
|
Struck down 39th Constitutional Amendment insulating PM’s election from judicial review.
|
Article 329A (added by 39th Amendment), Article 14, Rule of Law (Basic Structure).
|
Free and fair elections + judicial review = part of Basic Structure.
|
|
3.
|
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
|
Balanced Fundamental Rights & Directive Principles; reinforced Basic Structure.
|
Article 31C, Articles 14 & 19, Part IV (DPSPs).
|
Parliament cannot give unlimited power to itself. Harmony between Part III and Part IV is part of Basic Structure.
|
|
4.
|
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
|
Judicial review of 9th Schedule laws allowed.
|
Article 31B (9th Schedule), Basic Structure.
|
Any law (even in 9th Schedule after 1973) violating Fundamental Rights/basic structure is subject to judicial review.
|
|
5.
|
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
|
Expanded Article 21 – life & liberty cannot be restricted except by just, fair, and reasonable procedure.
|
Article 21, Articles 14, 19 (Golden Triangle).
|
Procedure established by law must be fair, just, reasonable; due process incorporated.
|
|
6.
|
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
|
Early case – narrow interpretation of Article 21.
|
Articles 19, 21, 22.
|
Liberty under Art. 21 is separate from freedoms under Art. 19. “Procedure established by law” is enough (no due process requirement). Later overruled by Maneka Gandhi.
|
|
7.
|
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)
|
Low point – SC upheld suspension of Article 21 during Emergency.
|
Articles 21, 359.
|
During Emergency, right to life can be suspended. Widely criticized; overruled later by Puttaswamy.
|
|
8.
|
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
|
Recognized Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right.
|
Articles 14, 19, 21.
|
Privacy intrinsic to right to life and liberty under Article 21.
|
|
9.
|
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
|
Decriminalized consensual homosexuality.
|
Articles 14, 15, 19, 21; Section 377 IPC.
|
Section 377 unconstitutional to the extent it criminalized consensual same-sex relations.
|
|
10.
|
Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)
|
Struck down adultery law (Section 497 IPC).
|
Articles 14, 15, 21.
|
Law discriminatory against women; violated dignity and equality.
|
|
/content-assets/4d1f26db5d7c4f318c6c18518147ba6e.jpg)
|
|
11.
|
Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)
|
Declared instant triple talaq unconstitutional.
|
Articles 14, 21, 25.
|
Talaq-e-biddat violates Fundamental Rights; not essential religious practice.
|
|
12.
|
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
|
Laid down limits on President’s Rule under Article 356.
|
Articles 356, 365.
|
President’s Rule subject to judicial review; secularism = Basic Structure.
|
|
13.
|
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
|
Struck down Section 66A of IT Act.
|
Article 19(1)(a), 19(2).
|
Freedom of speech cannot be curtailed by vague/unreasonable restrictions.
|
|
14.
|
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
|
Laid down guidelines against sexual harassment at workplace.
|
Articles 14, 15, 19, 21; CEDAW (international law).
|
Guidelines to be followed until legislation enacted (later became POSH Act, 2013).
|
|
15.
|
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp. (1985)
|
Right to livelihood = part of right to life.
|
Article 21, 19(1)(e), 19(1)(g).
|
Eviction of pavement dwellers without rehabilitation violates right to life.
|
|
16.
|
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
|
Upheld OBC reservations; introduced 50% ceiling limit.
|
Articles 14, 16(4).
|
Caste-based reservation valid, but capped at 50%; no reservation in promotions.
|
|
17.
|
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)
|
First case striking down caste-based reservations in education.
|
Article 15(1), Article 29(2).
|
Reservation violated equality. Led to First Constitutional Amendment (Art. 15(4)).
|
|
18.
|
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002)
|
Rights of minorities to establish & administer educational institutions.
|
Articles 19(1)(g), 29, 30.
|
Broad interpretation of minority rights; balance with state regulations.
|
|
19.
|
Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014)
|
Exempted minority institutions from RTE Act.
|
Article 21A, Article 30(1).
|
RTE Act not applicable to minority institutions.
|
|
20.
|
State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1962)
|
Federalism case – Union supremacy over states.
|
Articles 246, 131, 298, 299.
|
States have no sovereignty; Constitution establishes indestructible Union.
|
|
21.
|
Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
|
Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights.
|
Article 368, Part III.
|
FRs beyond Parliament’s amending power. Later modified in Kesavananda.
|
|
22.
|
R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970)
|
Bank nationalisation; Expanded scope of Article 19(1)(g).
|
Article 19(1)(g), Article 31.
|
Laws affecting property rights must pass test of reasonableness under Art. 19(1)(g).
|
|
23.
|
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) (First Judges’ Case)
|
Executive primacy in judicial appointments.
|
Articles 124, 217.
|
“Consultation” does not mean “concurrence” of CJI.
|
|
24.
|
SC Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India (1993) (Second Judges’ Case)
|
Judicial primacy in appointments (Collegium system).
|
Articles 124, 217.
|
CJI’s opinion has primacy; Collegium system established.
|
|
25.
|
Fourth Judges’ Case (NJAC Case, 2015)
|
Struck down NJAC Act; upheld Collegium system.
|
Articles 124, 217, 368.
|
Judicial independence = Basic Structure; NJAC unconstitutional
|