26 Jan Special | Top 50 Landmark Judgments of the Constitution

Sr. No.

Case Title

Relevant Articles from the Constitution

Judgment by the Supreme Court

AK Gopalan vs State of Madras (1950)

13, 14, 19, 21, 22, 32 

• Interpreted the concept of "procedure established by law".

• Citizens could be detained without trial if they were considered a threat to national security. 

• Set a precedent for the protection of citizens' rights under preventive detention laws. 

• Later overturned in Maneka Gandhi vs UOI (1978).

Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras (1950)

13(1), 19(1)(a), 19(2)

Invoked the doctrine of severability, which determines whether severing or removing a provision from legislation changes the legislative intent

behind the enactment. If not, the impugned provision may be declared invalid. 

Shankari Prasad vs Union of India  (1951) 

13(2), 368

The power to amend, granted to Parliament by Art. 368 includes the ability to amend the Fundamental Rights provided by Part III of the Constitution.

In Re: Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves (1960) 

1(3)(c), 3, 368

• The Preamble is not a part of the Constitution of India.

• Any cession of Indian territory must be done through a constitutional amendment under Article 368, as ordinary legislation under Article 3 is insufficient for such major changes.

• The power to amend the Constitution under Art. 368 gives the Parliament the power to amend Art. 1(3)(c) so as to include the power to cede national territory as well.

Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan (1965)

13(2), 31A, 31B, 32, 368(1) 

• Article 368 gives Parliament the authority to modify any provision of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. 

• It was stated that Article 13 only applies to regular legislation and not constitutional amendments, but Article 368 only applies to constitutional law.

I.C. Golaknath and Ors. vs State of Punjab (1967)

13, 368

• Article 368 specifies the method for amending the Constitution but does not give Parliament the authority to do so.

• FRs cannot be taken away by the amending procedure in Article 368.

• Amendment to the Constitution is 'law' within the meaning of Art. 13(2) and is therefore subject to Part III of the Constitution.

His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru vs State of Kerala (1973)

25, 26, 14, 19(1)(f), 31

• Outlined the basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution.

• The judiciary's power to invalidate any amendment made by Parliament that conflicts with the Constitution's fundamental principles.

Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain case (1975)

• 329A(4), 14, 368

• S. 123(7) of People's Representative (Amendment) Act, 1975

• 1st time used basic structure doctrine to strike down Art. 329-A(4) (adopted by the 39th Amendment in 1975), which exceeded Parliament's amending power because it damaged the Constitution's basic features.

• The election of PM Indira Gandhi was declared void.

ADM Jabalpur vs Shivakant Shukla (1976) [Habeas Corpus case]

14, 21, 22, 226, 359

• During an emergency, citizens' FRs, incl. Art. 21, are unavailable. 

• Art 21 cannot be suspended even in case of emergency. (Justice Khanna's Dissent).

• ADM Jabalpur judgment was overruled in K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. UOI (2017).

Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay vs M/S Abdulbhai Faizullabhai (1976)

226 

• Sown the seeds of Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

• Declared that procedural prescriptions are handmaids, not mistresses, of justice. 

• Discussed rights of the industrial workers & payment of bonus to the worker. 

Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978) [Personal Liberty case]

14, 19, 21

• The right to travel abroad is a component of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21. 

• The Court also concluded that the mere existence of an enabling law was insufficient to limit human liberty.
   

"The legal procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive, or arbitrary”

Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration (1978)

• 14, 21, 19

• Ss. 30(2), 56 of the Prison Act 1894

• Courts have the power to intervene and protect the FRs of prisoners. 

• Jail authorities cannot punish, torture, or discriminate against prisoners without court orders. Only the court had that authority.

• Court can issue writs to address prison injustice. 

Minerva Mills Ltd. vs Union of India (1980)

• 368(4), 368(5), 14, 19

• Ss 4, 5 of Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act 1976

● Parliament can amend the Constitution but should be within its basic framework.

● If Part IV subverts Part III of the Indian Constitution, it would destroy the basic structure.

● Part IV needs to be achieved without the abrogation of Part III of the Constitution.

Waman Rao vs Union of India (1981)

14, 19, 31A(1)(a), 31B, 31C, 39

The 1st Constitutional Amendment Act of 1951, introducing Articles 31A, 31B, and the 25th Amendment Act, introducing Article 31C, were not unconstitutional, and did not damage the basic structure of the Constitution.

S P Gupta vs Union of India (1981) [Judges' Transfer Case]

• 19(1)(a), 124, 217, 224 

• Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

• Established independence of the judiciary from executive interference in judicial appointments and transfers.

• Central Govt cannot use transfers as punishment for independent judges.

• Established the judiciary as the final authority in judges’ appointments and transfer cases.

A.K. Roy vs Union of India (1982) 

Preventive Detention

• Preventive detention laws are necessary to promote social security among individuals, ensure the security of the state, and maintain public order. 

• These laws do not violate the FRs (Part III), and they were held to be not vague.

Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India (1984)

32

Any person wrongfully deprived of liberty, including bonded labourers, can seek relief under Article 32 and certiorari under Article 226. This establishes a strong legal precedent against bonded labour and empowers the court to intervene actively. 

Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum (1985)

S. 125 of Cr.P.C

• Added maintenance rights of Muslim women under S. 125 of CrPC and stated this applies to all citizens, regardless of faith.

• Later, govt at the time overturned the decision by introducing the Muslim Women (Protection on Divorce Act), 1986, which stated that alimony should only be paid during the iddat period (in accordance with Muslim personal law)

• Later, in Daniel Latifi vs UOI (2001), the constitutional validity of the 1986 Act was upheld. Further held that the husband's duty to provide maintenance under Section 3(1)(a) is not limited to the iddat period alone but extends beyond it.

MC Mehta vs Union Of India (1986) [Oleum Gas Leak Case]

12, 21, 32

The Supreme Court rejected the "Strict Liability" test established in the English case of Rylands v. Fletcher for determining the liability of an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and introduced the concept of "Absolute Liability" in this case.

Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala (1986) [National Anthem case]

• 19(1)(a), 25(1)

• Sec 3 of Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971

Not singing the National Anthem while it is recited is not an offence under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act if the accused is not disrespecting it.

Indra Sawhney and Others vs Union of India (1992)
[Mandal Commission case]

15(4), 16(1), 16(4)

• Upheld the 27% reservation for OBCs but set a 50% limit on total reservations. 

• Established the concept of the "creamy layer" to exclude wealthier OBCs from reservation benefits. 

• Ruled that reservations can only apply to initial appointments, not promotions.

Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu (1992)

10th Schedule (added by 52nd Amendment)

• Affirmed that Speakers & Chairmen play a crucial role in the structure of parliamentary democracy. 

• They serve as the defender of the rights and privileges of the House and make significant choices.

“salutary and intended to strengthen the fabric of Indian Parliamentary democracy by curbing unprincipled and unethical political defections.”

Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka (1992) 

21 

The right to education at all levels is a fundamental right flowing from Article 21.

Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association vs Union of India (1993) [Second Judges Case]

124, 217

• There should be a collegium consisting of the Chief Justice and 2 other senior-most judges of the Supreme Court for making proposals and appointing judges.

• In the event of a conflict between the President and the CJI regarding judicial appointments, the Chief Justice of India's opinion would not only have primacy, but would be determinative in the matter.

S.R. Bommai vs Union of India (1994) [President's Rule case]

13, 356

• Established guidelines to prevent the misuse of Art 356 of the Constitution.

• It was also held that secularism is a fundamental component of the Constitution.

Vishaka and Others vs State of Rajasthan (1997) [Sexual Harassment case]

14(2), 19(3)(1)(g), 21(4)

• Women had a basic right to be free from sexual harassment at work. 

• Suggested that adequate mechanisms be developed to implement cases involving sexual harassment in the workplace.

Samatha vs State of Andhra Pradesh (1997)

320, 332, 334, 342 

In scheduled regions, forest land, tribal land, and govt land may not be leased to private corp. or non-tribal for industrial purposes. Such action is only permitted for govt  projects and tribal people.

L. Chandra Kumar vs Union of India (1997)

32, 226, 323A, 323B

• The Supreme Court's & the High Court's authority to conduct judicial reviews under Articles 32 and 226, respectively, be an integral part of the Constitution.

• Although the Tribunals established under Articles 323A & 323B may examine the legality of subsidiary legislation, they are not permitted to examine the legality of their parent statutes. 

In Re Special Reference Case (1999) [Third Judge Case]

143(1), 124(2), 216, 217, 222, 224

The individual and personal opinion of the Chief Justice of India does not constitute a valid “consultation" which comes under Arts 217(1) and 222(1). 

Lily Thomas vs Union of India (2000)

21, 25

Illegal to convert to Islam just to marry someone else while still being married to the first wife; punishable under S. 494 of IPC (Marrying again during the lifetime of husband or wife)

I.R Coelho vs State of Tamil Nadu (2007)

14, 19, 21, 9th Schedule

The basic structure is the very essence of the Indian Constitution; any amendment found inconsistent with Part 3 of the  Constitution, even if it is in the 9th Schedule, would be struck down by the judicial review process.

Ashok Thakur vs Union of India (2008)

• 14, 15, 46

• 93rd Amendment of the Constitution

• Sec 2(g) of the Central Educational Institutions (reservation in admission) Act 2006

"Creamy layer" (the wealthier & more socially advanced members of OBCs) should be excluded from the benefits of reservations.

Childline India Foundation & Anr vs Alan John Waters (2011)
[Paedophilia Case]

15, 21, 23, 24, 45

The conviction and 6-year rigorous imprisonment term handed on 2 UK citizens who were found not guilty by the Bombay High Court in a paedophilia case were reinstated by the Supreme Court.

"A deterrent punishment is being imposed in order to help wipe out the name of India from the map of sex tourism. Let paedophiles all over the world know that India should not be their destination in the future. Children are the greatest gift to humanity. The sexual abuse of children is one of the most heinous crimes."

Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union of India (2011) 

21

Legalized passive euthanasia under certain conditions, the Supreme Court decided that everyone has the right to depart away with dignity.

Lily Thomas vs Union Of India (2013)

• 102, 191, 246 and 248 

• Sec 8 of the Representation of People's Act 1951

Conviction, which carries a sentence of 2 years or more, will automatically disqualify MPs/MLAs.

People's Union For Civil Liberties & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr (2013)
[NOTA Case]

19(1)(a)

A voter's right to expression under Article 19(1)(a) in a parliamentary democracy includes a positive "right not to vote," which must be acknowledged and respected in the same way as the "right to vote."

National Legal Services Authority vs Union of India (2014)

14, 19 and 21

Recognized transgender people as a 3rd gender. The court also affirmed that transgender people have the same fundamental rights as other citizens.

Rajbala vs State of Haryana (2015)

14, 84, 173, 102, 191, 243F, 325, 326

The right to vote and the right to contest elections are indeed constitutional rights.

Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015)

• 19(1)(a)

• S. 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000

Declared S. 66A of the IT Act, unconstitutional and  held that the provision was violative of Article 19(1)(a) and did not satisfy the test of "reasonable restrictions" under Article 19(2)

“Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another”.

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs Union of India (2015) [NJAC Case]

99th Amendment of the Constitution and National Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2014

• 99th amendment sought to replace the collegium system with the NJAC, which would have included members from the executive and legislature.
   
• The Court held that this amendment violated the Constitution's basic structure by compromising the judiciary's independence.

Mukesh & Anr vs State For Nct Of Delhi & Ors (2017)
[Nirbhaya Case]

72, 137, 142, 145 and 161

Confirmed the death penalty for 4 of the accused, and holding that the crime was a "rarest of rare" case that warranted the maximum punishment. 

Shayara Bano vs Union Of India And Ors (2017)

14, 15, 25 

Triple Talaq (Talaq-e-Biddat), regulated by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, is unconstitutional because it is arbitrary.

Justice Kurian Joseph said, “What is held to be bad in the Holy Quran cannot be good in Shariat and, what is bad in theology is bad in law as well”

Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union Of India (2017)
[AADHAR judgment or the Right to Privacy judgment]

21

Part III of the Constitution, which protects fundamental rights, includes the right to privacy as an inherent and essential component.

Navtej Singh Johar vs Union Of India (2018)

• 14, 15, 19, 21

• S. 377 of the IPC 1860

• Partially struck down Section 377 of the IPC, decriminalizing same-sex relations between consenting adults. 

• LGBTQ+ individuals are now legally allowed to engage in consensual intercourse. 

• The Court has upheld provisions in S. 377 that criminalize non-consensual acts or sexual acts performed on animals.

Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs Union Of India (2018)

21

• Reiterated that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right. The distinction between active and passive euthanasia was discussed.

• The right to live with dignity also includes the smoothening of the process of dying in case of a terminally ill patient or a person in PVS with no hope of recovery.

Indian Young Lawyers Association vs The State Of Kerala (2018)

14, 15, 17, 25, 26

Issued directives to protect the safety of female pilgrims attending the temple after ruling that the prohibition on women between the ages of 10 and 50 entering the Sabarimala shrine violated the provisions of the Constitution.

Swapnil Tripathi vs Supreme Court of India (2018)

19(1)(a), 21, 145(4)

Granted permission for the live streaming of proceedings of cases having constitutional and national importance.

Joseph Shine vs Union Of India (2018)

• 14, 15, 21

• S 497 of the IPC 1860

S. 497 of the IPC unconstitutional, which made adultery a crime, since it "treats a husband as the master".

X vs Health & Family Welfare Department (2022)

• 14 

• 3B of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules

Unmarried women could obtain an abortion between 20-24 weeks of pregnancy due to a change in their marital circumstances

“Article 14 requires the state to refrain from denying to any person equality before the law or equal protection of laws. Prohibiting unmarried or single pregnant women (whose pregnancies are between twenty and twenty-four weeks) from accessing abortion while allowing married women to access them during the same period would fall foul of the spirit guiding Article 14.”

The State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh (2024)

15, 16, 341

Sub-classification within SC, ST categories is permissible & states have the authority to create such sub-classifications.