Rajasthan

Appearance

Landmark Judgements and Their Impact ​

Romesh Thappar Case (1950) ​

  • Name: Romesh Thappar vs. State of Madras
  • Year: 1950
  • Popular Name: Cross Roads case
  • Issue: Freedom of the press
  • Article: 19
  • Judgement: Freedom of speech includes propagation of ideas and circulation. Banning the entry and circulation of the 'Cross Roads' journal was unconstitutional. Free political discussion is essential for popular government.
  • Impact: The First Amendment Act (1951) added "public order" as a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2). Restrictions can only be imposed on grounds mentioned in Article 19(2).

A.K. Gopalan Case (1950) ​

  • Name: A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras
  • Year: 1950
  • Popular Name: Preventive Detention case
  • Issue: Procedure established by law
  • Articles: 21 & 22
  • Judgement: Invalidated Section 14 of Preventive Detention Act (1950). 'Personal liberty' under Article 21 means freedom from physical restraint, protects against executive, not legislature.
  • Impact: Narrow interpretation of Article 21 ('textualist approach'). 'Law' in Article 21 is state-made law, not natural justice. Protection under Article 21 is only against arbitrary executive action, not legislative action. Overruled in Maneka Gandhi case (1978).

Champakam Dorairajan Case (1951) ​

  • Name: State of Madras vs. Champakam Dorairajan
  • Year: 1951
  • Popular Name: Communal reservation
  • Issue: Communal reservation in admission to educational institutions
  • Articles: 15, 29 & 46
  • Judgement: Struck down Madras Government's communal GO for proportionate reservation based on religion, race, caste (violative of Articles 15(1) & 29(2)). Directive Principles cannot override Fundamental Rights.
  • Impact: Insertion of Clause (4) in Article 15 by the First Amendment Act (1951) allowing special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes, SCs, and STs, nullifying the effect of judgement.

Shankari Prasad Case (1951) ​

  • Name: Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India
  • Year: 1951
  • Issue: Parliament's power to amend the constitution
  • Articles: 13 & 368
  • Judgement: Parliament's amending power under Article 368 includes the power to amend Fundamental Rights. A constitutional amendment act is not void under Article 13(2). Upheld the validity of the First Amendment Act (1951).
  • Impact: Distinction between legislative law (ordinary law) and constituent law (constitutional amendment law). 'Law' in Article 13(2) refers to ordinary law. Rejected that Fundamental Rights are inviolable. Re-affirmed in Sajjan Singh case (1964), overruled in Golak Nath case (1967).

Berubari Union Case (1960) ​

  • Name: Berubari Union vs. Unknown
  • Year: 1960
  • Issue: Cession of Indian Territory to a foreign state
  • Articles: 3, 368 & First Schedule
  • Judgement: Article 3 does not cover the cession of Indian territory to a foreign country. Requires a constitutional amendment under Article 368. The Preamble is not a part of the constitution.
  • Impact: Enactment of the 9th Amendment Act (1960) to transfer Berubari Union (West Bengal) to Pakistan as per the Indo-Pak Agreement of 1958.

K.M. Nanavati Case (1961) ​

  • Name: K.M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra
  • Year: 1961
  • Issue: Jury System of trial
  • Judgement: Affirmed the conviction of Nanavati for murder.
  • Impact: Highlighted shortcomings of the Jury System leading to its abolition (completely removed in 1973).

I.C. Golak Nath Case (1967) ​

  • Name: I.C. Golak Nath vs. State of Punjab
  • Year: 1967
  • Issue: Parliament's power to amend the constitution
  • Articles: 13 & 368
  • Judgement: Overruled Shankari Prasad case and Sajjan Singh case. Amending power under Article 368 cannot abridge or take away Fundamental Rights. A constitutional amendment act is a law within the meaning of Article 13(2). Applied doctrine of prospective overruling.
  • Impact: Enactment of the 24th Amendment Act (1971) stating Parliament can amend any part of the constitution, and a constitutional amendment act will not be a law within the meaning of Article 13(2).

Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) ​

  • Name: Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala
  • Year: 1973
  • Issue: Fundamental Rights
  • Articles: 13 & 368
  • Judgement: Overruled Golak Nath case. Parliament can amend any provision of the Constitution but not the 'basic structure'. Upheld validity of 24th Amendment Act (1971) and Sections 2(a) and 2(b) of 25th Amendment Act (1971) as valid.
  • Impact: Emergence of the doctrine of basic structure as a limitation on Parliament's amending power.

Indira Nehru Gandhi Case (1975) ​

  • Name: Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain
  • Year: 1975
  • Issue: Election case
  • Articles: 329A (Repealed)
  • Judgement: Reaffirmed the applicability of the doctrine of basic structure. Struck down clause (4) of Article 329A (inserted by the 39th Amendment Act of 1975), keeping election disputes involving the Prime Minister and the Speaker of Lok Sabha outside the jurisdiction of all courts.
  • Impact: Enactment of the 42nd Amendment Act (1976) inserting clauses (4) and (5) in Article 368, attempting to remove limitations on constituent power.

A.D.M. Jabalpur Case (1976) ​

  • Name: A.D.M. Jabalpur vs. Shivakant Shukla
  • Year: 1976
  • Issue: Habeas Corpus case
  • Articles: 21 & 359
  • Judgement: Article 21 is the sole repository of the right to life and personal liberty against the state. No locus standi to move any petition before a High Court for a writ of habeas corpus or any other writ to challenge the legality of a detention order on any ground.
  • Impact: Restrictive meaning of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The 44th Amendment Act (1978) amended Article 359, stating that enforcement of Article 21 cannot be suspended by a Presidential Order.

Maneka Gandhi Case (1978) ​

  • Name: Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India
  • Year: 1978
  • Issue: Procedure established by law
  • Article: 21
  • Judgement: Overruled A.K. Gopalan case. Articles 14, 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive. 'Personal liberty' in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude. 'Procedure established by law' must be just, fair and reasonable.
  • Impact: Introduced American concept of 'due process of law' in Indian judicial interpretation. Established the 'golden triangle' rule (Articles 14, 19, 21). Expanded the scope of Article 21.

Bachan Singh Case (1980) ​

  • Name: Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab
  • Year: 1980
  • Issue: Constitutional validity of death penalty
  • Articles: 19 & 21
  • Judgement: Provision of death penalty in Section 302 IPC is not unreasonable and does not violate Articles 19 or 21. Death penalty should be confined to the 'rarest of rare cases'.

Minerva Mills Case (1980) ​

  • Name: Minerva Mills vs. Union of India
  • Year: 1980
  • Issue: Basic structure of the constitution
  • Articles: 31C & 368
  • Judgement: Invalidated Clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 and the amendment to Article 31C by the 42nd Amendment Act (1976). Limited power of Parliament to amend the constitution, judicial review and the balance between fundamental rights and directive principles are basic features.
  • Impact: Nullified the attempt to dilute the doctrine of the basic structure by the 42nd Amendment Act (1976).

Waman Rao Case (1980) ​

  • Name: Waman Rao vs. Union of India
  • Year: 1980
  • Issue: Judicial review of the ninth schedule
  • Articles: 368 & Ninth Schedule
  • Judgement: Amendments to the constitution made before 24 April 1973 (date of Kesavananda Bharati case) and by which the Ninth Schedule was amended are valid. Amendments after 24 April 1973 are open to challenge if they damage the basic structure.

Shah Bano Case (1985) ​

  • Name: Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano
  • Year: 1985
  • Issue: Maintenance of a divorced Muslim wife
  • Judgement: Muslim husband is liable to pay maintenance to divorced wife beyond iddat. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is secular and prevails over personal law.
  • Impact: Enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

D.C. Wadhwa Case (1986) ​

  • Name: D.C. Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar
  • Year: 1986
  • Issue: Ordinance-making power of the Governor
  • Article: 213
  • Judgement: The exceptional power under Article 213 cannot be used as a substitute for the law-making power of the State Legislature.
  • Impact: Exposed the fact that the ordinance-making power can be misused by the executive government.

M.C. Mehta Case (1986) ​

  • Name: M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India
  • Year: 1986
  • Issue: Power of the Supreme Court to award compensation
  • Articles: 21 & 32
  • Judgement: Its power under Article 32 is remedial in scope and can award compensation. Introduced the principle of absolute liability (no-fault liability).
  • Impact: Expansion of the ambit of Environmental Law in the country.

Kihoto Hollohan Case (1992) ​

  • Name: Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu
  • Year: 1992
  • Issue: Validity of anti-defection law
  • Articles: 368 & Tenth Schedule
  • Judgement: Declared paragraph 7 of Tenth Schedule unconstitutional for violating Article 368(2). Upheld validity of the remaining part of the Tenth Schedule.

Indra Sawhney Case (1992) ​

  • Name: Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India
  • Year: 1992
  • Issue: Reservation for OBCs in government jobs
  • Article: 16
  • Judgement: Upheld the validity of 27% reservation for OBCs with conditions. Invalidated 10% additional reservation for economically backward sections.

Mohini Jain Case (1992) ​

  • Name: Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka
  • Year: 1992
  • Issue: Right to education
  • Articles: 21 & 41
  • Judgement: Right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21.

Unni Krishnan Case (1993) ​

  • Name: Unni Krishnan vs. State of A.P.
  • Year: 1993
  • Issue: Right to education
  • Articles: 21 & 45
  • Judgement: Right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21 for children until the age of 14 years.

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association Case (1993) ​

  • Name: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India
  • Year: 1993
  • Issue: Appointment of Supreme Court and High Court Judges
  • Articles: 124 & 217
  • Judgement: The judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts shall be appointed by the President in accordance with the advice tendered by the Chief Justice of India.
  • Impact: Consequent to this judgement a Memorandum of Procedure for appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts was formulated, and is being followed for appointment. This procedure, invented by the judiciary, is known as the "collegium system".

S.R. Bommai Case (1994) ​

  • Name: S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India
  • Year: 1994
  • Issue: President's rule
  • Article: 356
  • Judgement: It upheld the constitutional validity of the imposition of President's rule.
  • Impact: This judgement placed a check on the arbitrary exercise of power under Article 356.

Vishaka Case (1997) ​

  • Name: Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan
  • Year: 1997
  • Issue: Sexual harassment of women at workplace
  • Articles: 15 & 21
  • Judgement: Sexual harassment of women at the workplace is a violation of Articles 15 and 21. It is the duty of the employer to prevent sexual harassment of working women.

Vineet Narain Case (1997) ​

  • Name: Vineet Narain vs. Union of India
  • Year: 1997
  • Issue: Autonomy and efficient functioning of CBI
  • Judgement: Statutory status should be conferred upon the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). Issued directions to make the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) an autonomous body.
  • Impact: This judgement led to the enactment of the CVC Act, 2003 that conferred the Statutory Status upon the CVC.

Association for Democratic Reforms Case (2002) ​

  • Name: Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms
  • Year: 2002
  • Issue: Criminalization of politics
  • Article: 19
  • Judgement: Voter has a right to know about the antecedents including the criminal past of his candidate.
  • Impact: Election Commission issued an order directing every candidate seeking election to the Parliament or a State Legislature to furnish on his nomination paper the information on the aspects

T.M.A. Pai Foundation Case (2002) ​

  • Name: T.M.A. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka
  • Year: 2002
  • Issue: Rights of minority educational institutions
  • Articles: 29 & 30
  • Judgement: With respect to rights of minority educational institutions, the unit for determining minority will be the state and not the whole of India. Minority educational institutions can't be regulated by the State government except for qualifications and minimum conditions of eligibility.
  • Name: Union of India vs. Naveen Jindal
  • Year: 2004
  • Issue: Right to fly the national flag
  • Article: 19
  • Judgement: Right to fly the national flag freely with respect and dignity is a fundamental right.

Prakash Singh Case (2006) ​

  • Name: Prakash Singh vs. Union of India
  • Year: 2006
  • Issue: Police reforms
  • Judgement: It issued seven directives to the central government, state governments and union territories aimed at bringing in police reforms to ensure that the police machinery functions without any political interference.

M. Nagaraj Case (2006) ​

  • Name: M. Nagaraj vs. Union of India
  • Year: 2006
  • Issue: Reservation in promotions for SCs and STs
  • Articles: 16 & 335
  • Judgement: Upheld the constitutional validity of several Amendment Acts.

I.R. Coelho Case (2007) ​

  • Name: I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu
  • Year: 2007
  • Issue: Ninth Schedule case
  • Judgement: It reaffirmed its judgement delivered in the Waman Rao case.

Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug Case (2011) ​

  • Name: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India
  • Year: 2011
  • Issue: Euthanasia
  • Article: 21
  • Judgement: Active euthanasia and assisted death are not permissible, whereas passive euthanasia is permissible with certain conditions, safeguards and procedure

People's Union for Civil Liberties Case (2013) ​

  • Name: People's Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India
  • Year: 2013
  • Issue: Electoral reforms
  • Articles: 14, 19 & 21
  • Judgement: It directed the Election Commission to provide necessary provision in the ballot papers/EVMs and another button called "None of the Above" (NOTA)

Lily Thomas Case (2013) ​

  • Name: Lily Thomas vs. Union of India
  • Year: 2013
  • Issue: Criminalization of politics
  • Articles: 102 & 191
  • Judgement: The members of the Parliament and the State Legislatures, who have been convicted for offences, will loose their membership of the House immediately.

T.S.R. Subramanian Case (2013) ​

  • Name: T.S.R. Subramanian vs. Union of India
  • Year: 2013
  • Issue: Civil service reforms
  • Judgement: It issued various directions to the central government, state governments and union territories aimed at bringing in civil service reforms for the effective, efficient and transparent administration as well as the accountability and stability of civil servants.
  • Name: National Legal Services Authority vs. Union of India
  • Year: 2014
  • Issue: Rights of transgender persons
  • Articles: 14 & 21
  • Judgement: It declared Transgenders along with Hijaras/Eunuchs as 'third gender' and held that the fundamental rights granted under Part III of the constitution are equally applicable to them.

Shreya Singhal Case (2015) ​

  • Name: Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India
  • Year: 2015
  • Issue: Restrictions on online speech
  • Article: 19
  • Judgement: It struck down section 66A of the Information Technology Act (2000), which provides punishment for sending offensive messages

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association Case (2015) ​

  • Name: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India
  • Year: 2015
  • Issue: Appointment of Supreme Court and High Court Judges
  • Articles: 124 & 217
  • Judgement: It declared the 99th Amendment Act (2014) as unconstitutional and void on the ground that it affects the independence of judiciary which is one of the components of the basic structure of the constitution

Shayara Bano Case (2017) ​

  • Name: Shayara Bano vs. Union of India
  • Year: 2017
  • Issue: Divorce in the muslim community
  • Article: 14
  • Judgement: It declared triple talaq i.e., 'talaq-e-biddat' as unconstitutional

K.S. Puttaswamy Case (2017) ​

  • Name: K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India
  • Year: 2017
  • Issue: Fundamental right to privacy
  • Article: 21
  • Judgement: It declared right to privacy as a fundamental right

Indian Young Lawyers Association Case (2018) ​

  • Name: Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. State of kerala
  • Year: 2018
  • Issue: Women's entry into Sabarimala temple
  • Articles: 14, 21 & 25
  • Judgement: It held that the women of all ages can enter into the Sabarimal temple and worship Lord Ayyappa.

Joseph Shine Case (2018) ​

  • Name: Joseph Shine vs. Union of India
  • Year: 2018
  • Issue: Decriminalisation of adultery
  • Articles: 14, 15 & 21
  • Judgement: It decriminalised adultery and struck down section 497 of the Indian Penal Code
  • Name: Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India
  • Year: 2018
  • Issue: Decriminalisation of homosexuality
  • Articles: 14, 15, 19 & 21
  • Judgement: It decriminalized homosexuality and partly struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code

M. Siddiq Case (2019) ​

  • Name: M. Siddiq vs. Mahant Suresh Das
  • Year: 2019
  • Issue: Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute
  • Judgement: It awarded the entire 2.77 acres of the disputed land in Ayodhya to the deity Ram Lalla virajman.

Anuradha Bhasin Case (2020) ​

  • Name: Anuradha Bhasin vs. Union of India
  • Year: 2020
  • Issue: Suspension of internet services
  • Article: 19
  • Judgement: The freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practice any profession or carry on any trade, business or occupation over the medium of internet enjoys constitutional protection

Rambabu Singh Thakur Case (2020) ​

  • Name: Rambabu Singh Thakur vs. Sunil Arora
  • Year: 2020
  • Issue: Criminalisation of politics

Internet and Mobile Association of India Case (2020) ​

  • Name: Internet and Mobile Association of India vs. Reserve Bank of India
  • Year: 2020
  • Issue: Ban on crypto currency trading
  • Article: 19
  • Judgement: It struck down a circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) that had directed the banks and financial institutions not to deal in virtual currencies.