2020 instrution.all rights reserved| Developed byLEGAL CHAMPION OF INDIA
| National Legal Services Authority Vs. Union of India and others [April 15, 2014] This case resulted in the recognition of transgender persons as a third gender. The SC also instructed the government to treat them as minorities and expand the reservations in education, jobs, education, etc. |
| Lily Thomas vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 July, 2013 The SC ruled that any MLA, MLC or MP who was found guilty of a crime and given a minimum of 2 year imprisonment would cease to be a member of the House with immediate effect. |
| People�s Union for Civil Liberties & ANR. Vs. Union of India & ANR. [SEPTEMBER 27, 2013] This judgement introduced the NOTA (None-Of-The-Above) option for Indian voters. |
| Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug Vs Union of India and Others (March 07, 2011) The SC ruled that individuals had a right to die with dignity, allowing passive euthanasia with 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. |
| I.R. Coelho Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors [2007] Insc 31 (11 January 2007) 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 is a list of acts and laws which cannot be challenged in a court of law. The Waman Rao ruling ensured that acts 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. |
| Samatha vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors on 11 July This judgement nullified all mining leases granted by the Andhra Pradesh State government in the Scheduled areas and asked it to stop all mining operations. It declared that forest land, tribal land, and 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. |
| Vishaka & Ors Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors [1997] INSC 665 (13 August 1997) This case dealt with sexual harassment at the workplace. In the judgement, the SC gave a set of guidelines for employers � as well as other responsible persons or institutions � to immediately ensure the prevention of sexual harassment. These are called �Vishaka Guidelines�. These were to be considered law until appropriate legislation was enacted. |
| S.R. Bommai Vs. Union of India [1994] INSC 173 (11 March 1994) In this judgement, the SC tried to curb the blatant misuse of Article 356 (regarding the imposition of President�s Rule on states). |
| Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. ... on 16 November, 1992 SC examined the scope and extent of Article 16(4), which provides for the reservation of jobs in favour of backward classes. It upheld the constitutional validity of 27% reservation for the OBCs with certain conditions (like creamy layer exclusion, no reservation in promotion, total reserved quota should not exceed 50%, etc.) |
| M.C. Mehta & ANR Vs. Union of India & Ors [1986] INSC 282 (20 December 1986) 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 measures, but also remedial measures when rights are violated. It also held that in the case of 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. |
| Shayara Bano Vs. Union of India and others [August 22, 2017] 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 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). |
| Waman Rao And Ors vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 13 November, 1980 The SC again reiterated the Basic Structure doctrine. It also drew a line of demarcation as April 24th, 1973 i.e., the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgement, and held that it should not be applied retrospectively to reopen the validity of any amendment to the Constitution which took place prior to that date. |
| Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors [1980] INSC 141 (31 July 1980) This case again strengthens the Basic Structure doctrine. The judgement struck down 2 changes made 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. |
| Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India [1978] INSC 16 (25 January 1978) 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 the mere existence of an enabling law was not enough to restrain personal liberty. Such a law must also be �just, fair and reasonable.� |
| Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Shri Raj Narain & Anr on 7 November, 1975 The SC applied the theory of basic structure and struck down Clause(4) of article 329-A, which was inserted by the 39th Amendment in 1975 on the grounds that it was beyond the Parliament�s amending power as it destroyed the Constitution�s basic features. |
| Kesavananda Bharati ... vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973 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 �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. |
| I. C. Golaknath & Ors Vs. State of Punjab & ANR [1967] INSC 45 (27 February 1967) 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 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. |
| The Berubari Union And ... vs Unknown on 14 March, 1960 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 this article in order to execute the Nehru-Noon agreement. Hence, the 9th Amendment Act was passed to enforce the agreement. |
| Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo Vs. Union of India This case dealt with the amendability of Fundamental Rights (the First Amendment�s validity was 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. |
| A.K. Gopalan Vs. The State of Madras [1950] INSC 14 (19 May 1950) SC contented that there was no violation of Fundamental Rights enshrined in Articles 13, 19, 21 and 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. |
2020 instrution.all rights reserved| Developed byLEGAL CHAMPION OF INDIA
