Important Judgements

Case name	Highlight	Remark
Second Judges Case 1993	Judges Collegium for appointment of Judges	Judiciary took over the power of appointing judges from the executive to itself, holding that the government’s primacy in appointing judges would al compromise the independence of the judiciary.
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India 2015	NJAC unconstitutional National Judicial Appointments Commission	Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act on the ground that it diluted the independence of the judiciary which was part of the basic structure of the Constitution
AK Gopalan Case 1950	Preventive detention do not violate FR	Protection under Article 21 is available against only arbitrary executive action but not arbitrary legislative action However, Menaka Gandhi Case 1978, protection against both are available
Berubari Union Case 1960	Preamble not part of Constitution. However some assistance derived from interpretation of preamble	President referred to SC on implementation of Indo-Pak agreement relating to Berubari union( a thana, WB) and exchange of enclaves. Parliament not empowered to make agreements to cede a territory except by Constitutional amendments
Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala case 1973	Basic structure Judicial review Preamble part of constitution Reasonable classification do not violate FR [Doctrine of Reasonableness]	Doctrine of basic structure of constitution - unalterable Judicial review is basic structure Preamble is part of constitution and basic Constitution should be read or interpreted in the light of grand and noble vision of Preamble DPSP 39b and 39c shall not be void on the ground of FR 14,19,31
Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narayan Case 1975	Regarding Election Disputes involving the Prime Minister and Purpose of 39th Amendment of the Constitution	39th CAA -Retrospective law- election of the Prime Minster and the Speaker cannot be challenged in any court in the country. It can be rather challenged before a committee formed by the Parliament itself. Indira Gandhi did this since she was found guilty by Allahabad HC for malpractices in election (used govt servants for election work). SC verdict is Gandhi to continue but the amendment is stuck down
ADM Jabalpur, 1976	During a national Emergency the citizen had no recourse to her fundamental rights
Menaka Gandhi vs Union of India 1978	Protection of life and personal liberty	Protection under Article 21 is available both against the arbitrary executive action and arbitrary legislative action . Expanded the scope of Article 21 to include more rights This overruled the judgment of Gopalan 1950 case where SC limited only to arbitrary executive action
SR Bommai Vs Union of India 1994	Misuse of Article 356	Art 365 should be invoked only as the last resort power given to President and when the State’s Constitutional machinery had failed.
Samata judgement 1997	Against Leasing out scheduled areas to mining companies in AP	All lands leased to private mining companies in the scheduled areas are null and void. Only the State Mineral Development Corporation or a cooperative of the tribal people could take up mining activity and that too in compliance with the Forest Conservation Act and the Environment Protection Act. Samata, NGO in AP.
Jagadambika pal case 1998	Composite floor test in assembly
Kaiser-I-Hind Pvt. Ltd. v. National Textile Corporation (2002)	President application of mind in the cases referred from governor	Article 254(2), that the words “reserved for consideration” means< style='mso-spacerun:yes'> active application of mind by the President (why and what) . Granting of assent under Article 254 (2) is not exercise of legislative power of President such as contemplated under Article 123 but it is part of legislative procedure. Procedure is always subjected to judicial review”
People Union for Civil Liberties PUCL v. Union of India 2013	NOTA introduced by EC
Justice J.S. Verma in December 1995	Hinduism is a way of life judgement	“Hindutv or “Hinduism” during an election campaign not a corrupt practice i iolation of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) since the terms ordinarily refer not to religion but only to “a way of life”
Mohammed Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum 1985	Muslim husband’s obligation to provide maintenance for a divorced wife	who is unable to maintain herself sim ilar to alimony
DC Wadhwa Case 1986	Repeated ordinances [in case of Bihar]	Held that Exceptional power of law making through ordinance cannot be used as substitute for the legislative power of the state legislature.
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) 2017	Right to Privacy	SC upheld that right to privacy is protected as a fundamental constitutional right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India
Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India 2006	Office of Profit	SC widened Office of Profit as “an office which is capable of yielding a profit or pecun ary gain
BP Singhal Case 2010	Governor	Governor removal by Centre can be challenged in the courts on the grounds of arbitrariness or bad faith
M. Nagaraj vs Union Of India 2006	Test of backwardness of caste not required Conditional Reservations in promotions	Once a caste was included in the Schedule and a presidential order was issued, there was no need for fresh adjudication of their backwardness Upheld the constitutional validity of reservations for SCs and STs to include promotions with three conditions: quantifiable data on the backwardness of SCs & STs the facts about their inadequate representation the overall administrative efficiency
Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Gupta Case (2018)	Reservations in promotions (Flexible)	Supreme Court allowed for grant of quota for promotions in the government jobs to SCs and STs without the need to "collect quantifiable data" (provided some flexibility in granting reservations in promotions)
Indira Sawhney judgment 1992 OR Mandal case	Reservations to OBCs	27% reservation in government jobs to socially and educational Backward Classes is constitutionally valid Creamy layer criteria Capped the reservation limit to 50%. Rejected the additional reservation of 10% for poorer sections of higher castes No reservations in promotions for OBCs
Kihoto Hollohan Case 1993	Anti-defection law	Presiding Officer decision is subjec ted to judicial review Court held that President officer while deciding question under anti defection functions like a tribunal. Hence, like other tribunals, it is subjected to judicial review However, Courts cannot question the power of Presiding officer in deciding anti-defection. Cannot direct speaker to take a decision Review only after decision
L Chandra Kumar Case, 1997	Tribunals part of Judiciary system Tribunal appeals goes to HC	Exclusion of jurisdiction of HC & SC w.r.t tribunal matters is unconstitutional
Rojer Mathew case 2019	Speaker certifying money bill under judicial review Tribunal members appointment	Qualification and appointment rules w.r.t Tribunals Qualification and appointment rules w.r.t Tribunal members conferred primacy on Government which is invalid Lack of judicial dominance in the Search-cum-Selection Committee is in direct contravention of the doctrine of separation of powers and an encroachment on the judicial domain NOTE: Except NCLAT, the selection committee for all other tribunals was made up either entirely from personnel within or nominated by the Central government or comprised a majority of personnel from the Central government. While the selection committee for NCLAT consisted of two judges and two secretaries to the Government of India, all other committees comprised only one judg e and three secretaries to the Government of India. Quashed Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017 However, Central Govt is empowered to frame rules related to tribunals Members of tribunals should not be given rank and status akin to Constitutional functionaries Issues delegated to Govt for further examination Central Govt must undertake Judicial Impact Assessment to analyse Via media of merging of all tribunals into Inequitable distribution of workload of different tribunals Whether direct appeals should be provided to SC against tribunals or should they necessary be first tested by high courts Summary Judiciary must have an equal say in the appointment of members of tribunals Speaker certifying Money bill is under Judicial review Issues referred to larger bench What are the scope and nuances of money bill?
Prakash Singh Case, 2006	Police reforms
NALSA vs Union of India case 2014	Transgenders rights	transgender people should be recognized as a third gender and enjoy all fundamental rights, while also being entitled to specific benefits in education and employment
Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. the Hon’b Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly, 2020	Speaker's adjudicatory powers relating to Anti defection law	Recommended that Parliament should rethink as to whether disqualification petitions entrusted to Speaker as a quasijudicial authority when suc Speaker continues to belong to a particular political party either de jure or de facto Parliament may seriously consider a Constitutional amendment to setup a permanent Tribunal headed by a retired Supreme Court judge or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court, or some other outside independent mechanism
Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar 1962 SC	Sedition law (Section 124A)	only a “viole revolution” against the government attracts the charge of sediti n. A free expression of disapprobation against the ruling government's action with an intention to better the condition of the people is not treason It has to be against the state, not against the government and also there has to be a direct incitement to violence.
Supreme Court of India vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal case 2019	Office of CJI under RTI

Judgements w.r.t Money bill

Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui v. State of UP (2014)	Speaker decision of money bill is not judicially reviewable	Speaker decision to classify a draft statute as a money bill, was not judicially reviewable, even if the classification was incorrect and argument is that error is nothing not more than that the procedural irregularity
Rojer Mathew case 2019	Speaker certifying money bill under judicial review	Issues referred to larger bench What are the scope and nuances of money bill?

Judgements w.r.t Preamble

Berubari Union Case 1960

Preamble not part of Constitution.

However some assistance derived from interpretation of preamble

President referred to SC on implementation of Indo-Pak agreement relating to Berubari union( a thana, WB) and exchange of enclaves.
Parliament not empowered to make agreements to cede a territory except by Constitutional amendments

Kesavananda Bharati Case 1973

Preamble is part of Constitution and can be amended subject to condition that basic structure is not amended

Constitution should be read or interpreted in the light of grand and noble vision of Preamble

Judgement w.r.t conflict b/w FR and DPSP

1951 Champakam Dorairajan Case

Accordingly Parliament

1967 Golaknath case

1971 Parliament counter

1973 Kesavananda Bharati Case

1976 42nd CAA

1978 44rth CAA

1980 Minerva Mills case

Judgements w.r.t Basic Structure of Constitution

1951 Shankari Prasad Case

1967 Golaknath Case

1971 24th CAA

1973 Kesavananda Bharati Case

1976 42nd CAA

1980 Minerva Mills Case

1981 Waman Rao Case

Judgements w.r.t Judiciary legislating

Suresh Seth v. Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corporation (2005)	Under our Constitutional scheme, Parliament and Legislative Assemblies exercise sovereign power to enact laws
Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal (1991)	The power to legislate has not been conferred on the courts	Making laws is the function of the legislature.

Mohammed Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum 1985

There is no conflict between the provisions of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure and those of the Muslim Personal Law on the question of the Muslim husbandâ obligation to provide maintenance for a divorced wife who is unable to maintain herself. Shah Bano had the right to be given maintenance money, similar to alimony.

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act was adopted in May 1986 and nullified the Supreme Court’s judgment in th Shah Bano case.

Divorced woman or woman who lost her sp ouse, If unable to maintain herself

Magistrate has power to order to pay her maintenance by her relatives
If no relatives, then magistrate has power to order to pay her from state wakf board
This made that husband is obliged only to pay alimony till iddat period only

This law brought by Rajiv Gandhi to appease minority voters which nullified supreme court judgement

The message the entire episode was sensitive issues are better handled by the Supreme Court, that will be of greater benefit.

Sabarimala Judgement

What is Sabarimala Judgement

Supreme court allowed women irrespective of their age to enter Sabarimala temple by striking down the provisions of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 by 4:1 majority.

History

Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 states that “Women who are not by custom and usage allowed to enter a plac of public worship shall not be entitled to enter or offer worship in any place of public worship.” which implies that entry of women aged be ween 10 and 50 years (child bearing age) is prohibited

Constitutional provisions and Judges rationale

SC judges remarked

Practice of excluding women did not constitute an “essenti religious practice”Places of public worship must be open to all sections and classes of Hindus, notwithstanding any custom or usage
Right of women to enter Sabarimala was guaranteed under Article 25(1) [all persons are equally entitle d to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion]
Morality used in Articles 25 and 26 referred to constitutional morality which includes the values of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity
Barring menstruating women from entering the shrine is violative of Article 17 (abolition of untouchability).
Therefore, the prohibition of entry of women into Kerala is violative of Articles 17, 25 and 26 and hence abolished.

Dissenting judges view

Sole woman judge, Justice Indu Malhotra, who dissented, reasoned,

“Issues of deep religious sentiments should not be ordinarily be interfered by the court. The Sabarimala shrine and the deity is protected by Article 25 of the Constitution of India and the religious practices cannot be solely tested on the basis of Article 14. Notions of rationality cannot be invoked in matters of religion... What constitutes essential religious practice is the religious community to decide, not for the court. India is a diverse country. Constitutional morality would allow all to practise their beliefs. The court should not interfere unless if there is any aggrieved person from that section or religion"

Conclusion

It is interpretative and is under review by a larger SC bench

Doctrine of Reasonableness

Also Reasonable classification

Kesavananda Bharati Case, 1973

In case of affirmative action in reasonable differentiation/discrimination

Test of reasonableness

Classification must be based on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of group
and the differentia must have a < /span>rational nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by the executive or legislative action under challenge

Citizenship Amendment Act (2019)

Doctrine of Proportionality

State restrictions vs Fundamental rights

Ex: Banning internet in Kashmir after revocation of Article 370 is against Right to Freedom

Imp Judgements