IMPORTANT CASES AND JUDGEMENTS
| Case Name (Year) | Popular Name | Core Issue / Theme | Relevant Article(s) | Key Judicial Principle / Doctrine | Judgement | Constitutional / Legal Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Romesh Thappar vs. State of Madras (1950) | Cross Roads case | Freedom of press and circulation of ideas | Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(2) | Freedom of circulation | Court held that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of circulation and banning entry and circulation of a journal is unconstitutional. | Led to the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951 adding “public order” as a ground of reasonable restriction under Article 19(2). |
| A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras (1950) | Preventive Detention case | Scope of personal liberty and preventive detention | Article 21, Article 22 | Procedure established by law | Court held that Article 21 protects only against executive action and ‘personal liberty’ means freedom from physical restraint. | Established a narrow interpretation of Article 21; later overruled in Maneka Gandhi case (1978). |
| State of Madras vs. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) | — | Communal reservation in educational institutions | Article 15(1), Article 29(2) | Fundamental Rights over DPSPs | Court held that directive principles cannot override fundamental rights and communal reservation based on religion and caste is unconstitutional. | Led to the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951 inserting Article 15(4). |
| Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India (1951) | — | Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights | Article 13(2), Article 368 | Distinction between constituent and legislative power | Court held that Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368 and such amendments are not ‘law’ under Article 13(2). | Established Parliament’s wide amending power; later overruled in Golak Nath case (1967). |
| Berubari Union Case (1960) | — | Cession of Indian territory to foreign state | Article 3, Article 368, First Schedule | Constitutional amendment required for cession | Court held that cession of Indian territory to a foreign state requires a constitutional amendment under Article 368. | Led to the Ninth Constitutional Amendment Act, 1960. |
| K.M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra (1961) | — | Validity of jury system | — | Judicial determination over jury verdict | Court held that the High Court’s conviction and sentence were valid, highlighting flaws in the jury system. | Contributed to abolition of jury trials; jury system removed by Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. |
| I.C. Golak Nath vs. State of Punjab (1967) | — | Limitation on Parliament’s amending power | Article 13(2), Article 368 | Prospective overruling | Court held that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights and constitutional amendments are ‘law’ under Article 13(2). | Led to the Twenty-fourth Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971. |
| Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973) | Fundamental Rights case | Extent of Parliament’s amending power | Article 13, Article 368 | Basic Structure doctrine | Court held that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution except its basic structure. | Established the Basic Structure doctrine as a permanent limitation on Parliament’s amending power. |
| Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (1975) | Election case | Application of basic structure to constitutional amendments | Article 329A | Basic Structure doctrine | Court held that Clause (4) of Article 329A is unconstitutional as it violates the basic structure of the Constitution. | Reaffirmed basic structure limitation on amending power; triggered insertion of Clauses (4) and (5) in Article 368 by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976. |
| A.D.M. Jabalpur vs. Shivakant Shukla (1976) | Habeas Corpus case | Right to life and liberty during Emergency | Article 21, Article 359 | Suspension of enforceability of rights | Court held that during the operation of a Presidential Order under Article 359, no writ petition lies for enforcement of Article 21. | Judgement nullified by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978; decision no longer good law. |
| Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978) | Personal Liberty case | Scope of “procedure established by law” | Article 21 | Due process and golden triangle | Court held that procedure under Article 21 must be just, fair and reasonable and Articles 14, 19 and 21 are interlinked. | Expanded scope of Article 21; introduced due process and established the golden triangle doctrine. |
| Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980) | — | Constitutional validity of death penalty | Article 19, Article 21 | Rarest of rare doctrine | Court held that death penalty is constitutional but should be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases. | Laid down the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine for awarding capital punishment. |
| Minerva Mills vs. Union of India (1980) | — | Limits on Parliament’s amending power | Article 31C, Article 368 | Basic structure and judicial review | Court held that Clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 and amended Article 31C are unconstitutional as they destroy the basic structure. | Restored balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs; reaffirmed limited amending power and judicial review. |
| Waman Rao vs. Union of India (1980) | — | Judicial review of Ninth Schedule laws | Article 368, Ninth Schedule | Basic structure test for Ninth Schedule | Court held that post–24 April 1973 Ninth Schedule amendments are subject to basic structure review. | Opened Ninth Schedule laws to judicial review if they violate basic structure. |
| Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano (1985) | — | Maintenance rights of divorced Muslim women | — | Secular nature of criminal law | Court held that Section 125 CrPC applies to Muslims and maintenance is payable beyond iddat period. | Led to enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. |
| D.C. Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar (1986) | — | Misuse of ordinance-making power | Article 213 | Fraud on the Constitution | Court held that repeated re-promulgation of ordinances is unconstitutional and a subversion of democracy. | Restricted executive misuse of ordinance-making power. |
| M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (1986) | Oleum Gas Leak case | Compensation for violation of Article 21 | Article 21, Article 32 | Absolute liability doctrine | Court held that Supreme Court can award compensation under Article 32 for gross violation of fundamental rights. | Introduced doctrine of absolute liability; expanded environmental jurisprudence. |
| Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu (1992) | Defection case | Validity of anti-defection law | Article 368, Tenth Schedule | Judicial review of Speaker’s decision | Court held that Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule is unconstitutional for lack of ratification. | Upheld rest of Tenth Schedule; confirmed judicial review over defection decisions. |
| Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992) | Mandal case | Reservation for OBCs in public employment | Article 16 | Creamy layer principle | Court held that OBC reservation is valid with conditions like exclusion of creamy layer and 50% ceiling. | Institutionalised creamy layer concept; led to multiple constitutional amendments on reservation. |
| Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka (1992) | Capitation Fee case | Right to education as a fundamental right | Article 21, Article 41 | Right to education under Article 21 | Court held that right to education at all levels is a fundamental right implicit in Article 21 and capitation fee is unconstitutional. | Basis for Unni Krishnan judgement; paved way for constitutional recognition of right to education. |
| Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) | — | Scope of right to education | Article 21, Article 45 | Limited fundamental right to education | Court held that free education is a fundamental right only up to the age of 14 years, subject to state capacity thereafter. | Led to the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002 and enactment of the RTE Act, 2009. |
| Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India (1993) | Second Judges case | Judicial appointments | Article 124, Article 217 | Collegium system | Court held that ‘consultation’ means ‘concurrence’ and judicial primacy governs appointments. | Led to evolution of the collegium system for judicial appointments. |
| S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994) | — | Misuse of President’s Rule | Article 356 | Judicial review of President’s Rule | Court held that imposition of President’s Rule is subject to judicial review and secularism is part of basic structure. | Placed constitutional limits on arbitrary use of Article 356. |
| Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) | — | Sexual harassment at workplace | Article 15, Article 21 | Vishaka Guidelines | Court held that sexual harassment violates Articles 15 and 21 and laid down binding guidelines. | Basis for Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013. |
| Vineet Narain vs. Union of India (1997) | Jain Hawala case | Autonomy of investigative agencies | — | Institutional independence | Court held that CBI and ED must function autonomously and struck down Single Directive. | Led to enactment of the CVC Act, 2003. |
| Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) | Poll Reforms case | Voter’s right to know | Article 19(1)(a) | Right to information of voters | Court held that voters have a fundamental right to know criminal, financial and educational details of candidates. | Mandatory disclosure of candidate information in elections. |
| T.M.A. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka (2002) | — | Rights of minority educational institutions | Article 29, Article 30 | Autonomy of minority institutions | Court held that minorities have the right to establish and administer institutions subject to reasonable regulation. | Led to 93rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2005 inserting Article 15(5). |
| Union of India vs. Naveen Jindal (2004) | — | Right to fly national flag | Article 19(1)(a) | Symbolic expression of free speech | Court held that flying the national flag with dignity is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). | Recognised symbolic expression within freedom of speech. |
| Prakash Singh vs. Union of India (2006) | — | Police reforms | — | Institutional autonomy of police | Court held that police reforms are mandatory and issued binding directives to insulate police from political interference. | Framework for police reforms across states. |
| M. Nagaraj vs. Union of India (2006) | — | Reservation in promotions | Article 16, Article 335 | Compelling reasons doctrine | Court held that reservation in promotion for SCs/STs is valid subject to conditions of backwardness and efficiency. | Set constitutional conditions for reservation in promotions. |
| I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) | Ninth Schedule case | Judicial review of Ninth Schedule laws | Article 31B, Ninth Schedule | Basic structure test | Court held that post-1973 Ninth Schedule laws are subject to basic structure review. | Reaffirmed supremacy of basic structure over Ninth Schedule immunity. |
| Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India (2011) | — | Permissibility of euthanasia | Article 21 | Passive euthanasia with safeguards | Court held that passive euthanasia is permissible subject to strict safeguards, while active euthanasia remains illegal. | Laid down judicial guidelines governing passive euthanasia in India. |
| People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India (2013) | NOTA case | Right not to vote and secrecy of ballot | Article 14, Article 19(1)(a), Article 21 | Negative voting as free expression | Court held that voters have a right to reject all candidates through NOTA while maintaining secrecy of vote. | Led to introduction of NOTA option in EVMs and ballot papers. |
| Lily Thomas vs. Union of India (2013) | — | Disqualification of convicted legislators | Article 102, Article 191 | Immediate disqualification on conviction | Court held that convicted MPs and MLAs stand disqualified immediately and Section 8(4) of RPA is unconstitutional. | Resulted in immediate disqualification of convicted legislators; attempt to nullify judgment failed. |
| T.S.R. Subramanian vs. Union of India (2013) | — | Civil service reforms | — | Fixed tenure and institutional autonomy | Court held that civil servants must have fixed tenure and act only on written instructions. | Led to cadre rule amendments and partial implementation of civil service reforms. |
| National Legal Services Authority vs. Union of India (2014) | — | Rights of transgender persons | Article 14, Article 21 | Gender identity and dignity | Court held that transgender persons are a third gender with full fundamental rights and right to self-identification. | Led to enactment of Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. |
| Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015) | — | Online free speech restrictions | Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(2) | Vagueness and overbreadth | Court held that Section 66A of the IT Act is unconstitutional for violating freedom of speech. | Struck down Section 66A; strengthened digital free speech protections. |
| Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India (2015) | NJAC case / Fourth Judges case | Judicial appointments and independence | Article 124, Article 217 | Independence of judiciary | Court held that the NJAC and 99th Amendment are unconstitutional for violating basic structure. | Restored the collegium system for judicial appointments. |
| Shayara Bano vs. Union of India (2017) | Triple Talaq case | Validity of talaq-e-biddat | Article 14 | Manifest arbitrariness | Court held that instant triple talaq is unconstitutional as it violates Article 14. | Led to enactment of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. |
| K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017) | Right to Privacy case | Fundamental right to privacy | Article 21 | Privacy as intrinsic liberty | Court held that right to privacy is a fundamental right subject to legality, necessity and proportionality. | Overruled M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh; expanded Article 21 jurisprudence. |
| Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. State of Kerala (2018) | Sabarimala case | Women’s entry into religious places | Article 14, Article 21, Article 25 | Constitutional morality | Court held that exclusion of women from Sabarimala temple is unconstitutional. | Referred to larger bench; intensified debate on faith vs equality. |
| Joseph Shine vs. Union of India (2018) | — | Criminalisation of adultery | Article 14, Article 15, Article 21 | Autonomy and dignity | Court held that adultery is not a criminal offence and Section 497 IPC is unconstitutional. | Decriminalised adultery; confined it to civil law domain. |
| Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018) | — | Criminalisation of homosexuality | Article 14, Article 15, Article 19, Article 21 | Constitutional morality | Court held that consensual same-sex relations are protected by fundamental rights. | Partially struck down Section 377 IPC; decriminalised homosexuality. |
| M. Siddiq vs. Mahant Suresh Das (2019) | Ayodhya case | Ram Janmabhoomi–Babri Masjid dispute | — | Possessory title and equity | Court held that disputed land be allotted to Ram Lalla and alternative land given for mosque. | Ended Ayodhya dispute; led to formation of Ram Janmabhoomi trust. |
| Anuradha Bhasin vs. Union of India (2020) | — | Internet shutdowns | Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1)(g) | Proportionality | Court held that internet access is protected under Article 19 and indefinite shutdowns are unconstitutional. | Recognised constitutional protection of internet access subject to restrictions. |
| Rambabu Singh Thakur vs. Sunil Arora (2020) | — | Criminalisation of politics | — | Transparency in candidate selection | Court held that political parties must publicly disclose criminal antecedents and reasons for candidate selection. | Strengthened disclosure norms; new compliance formats introduced by ECI. |
| Internet and Mobile Association of India vs. Reserve Bank of India (2020) | — | Ban on cryptocurrency trading | Article 19(1)(g) | Proportionality | Court held that RBI circular banning banking support to cryptocurrencies is unconstitutional. | Lifted crypto trading ban; highlighted need for regulatory framework. |