The Indian judiciary has played a pivotal role in shaping the nation’s legal and constitutional framework. Here are 20 landmark judgments that significantly influenced Indian law.
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Facts:
A religious leader challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act, arguing it violated fundamental rights. The case became a debate on the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot alter its Basic Structure. It upheld the power of judicial review and emphasized that democracy, secularism, and federalism must remain intact.
Analysis:
This case established the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring fundamental principles of governance remain protected from excessive legislative power.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without reason, preventing her from traveling abroad. She challenged the decision as a violation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty).
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that the procedure established by law must be fair, just, and reasonable. It widened the scope of Article 21 by linking it with Articles 14 and 19.
Analysis:
The judgment ensured that personal liberty could not be curtailed arbitrarily, reinforcing due process and fairness in law.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
3. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
Facts:
A social worker was gang-raped at work. At the time, India had no specific laws to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court laid down the Vishaka Guidelines, mandating workplace policies against sexual harassment and emphasizing gender equality under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Analysis:
The case led to the enactment of the POSH Act, 2013, providing a legal framework to combat workplace harassment.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
4. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
Facts:
The petitioners challenged land reform laws, arguing they violated Fundamental Rights.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that Fundamental Rights cannot be amended by Parliament. The decision was later overturned by Kesavananda Bharati.
Analysis:
This case set the stage for debates on constitutional amendments and judicial review.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
5. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
Facts:
The government took control of Minerva Mills, citing constitutional amendments limiting judicial review.
Judgment:
The Court reaffirmed that judicial review is part of the Basic Structure, ensuring a balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
Analysis:
It safeguarded democracy by preventing excessive legislative power.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
6. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)
Facts:
During the Emergency (1975-77), several citizens were detained without trial. The government argued that Article 21 could be suspended.
Judgment:
The Court controversially ruled in favor of the government, denying the right to habeas corpus.
Analysis:
Later overturned, this case highlighted the importance of judicial independence and civil liberties.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
7. Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
Facts:
The Mandal Commission recommended 27% reservations for OBCs, sparking protests.
Judgment:
The Court upheld reservations but introduced the creamy layer exclusion and 50% cap.
Analysis:
It significantly influenced India’s reservation policies and social justice mechanisms.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
8. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Facts:
Several state governments were dismissed under Article 356.
Judgment:
The Court ruled that President’s Rule is subject to judicial review and should not be misused.
Analysis:
The case strengthened federalism and state autonomy.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
9. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Facts:
Aadhaar’s biometric data collection raised concerns over privacy rights.
Judgment:
The Court declared Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right under Article 21.
Analysis:
It laid the foundation for data protection laws in India.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
10. Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)
Facts:
A Muslim woman challenged instant triple talaq, arguing it was discriminatory.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court declared triple talaq unconstitutional.
Analysis:
It led to the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
11. MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986) – Environmental Protection
Facts:
The case arose from the tragic Oleum Gas Leak incident in Delhi, where a gas leak from Shriram Foods and Fertilizers caused severe health hazards. The case was filed by environmentalist M.C. Mehta, seeking stricter industrial regulations.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court laid down the Absolute Liability principle, making industries engaging in hazardous activities strictly liable for any damage caused, without exceptions.
Analysis:
This judgment strengthened environmental jurisprudence in India, making it clear that public safety cannot be compromised for economic gains. It led to the enactment of stringent environmental laws like the Environmental Protection Act, 1986.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
12. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) – Decriminalization of Homosexuality
Facts:
The petition challenged Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized consensual same-sex relationships, arguing that it violated fundamental rights.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 377 to the extent that it criminalized consensual homosexual conduct, declaring it unconstitutional under Articles 14, 15, and 21.
Analysis:
This ruling was a landmark victory for LGBTQ+ rights in India, affirming dignity, equality, and privacy for sexual minorities.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
13. Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) – Disqualification of Convicted Legislators
Facts:
This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenged the constitutionality of Section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act, which allowed convicted legislators to continue in office if they appealed their conviction within three months.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down the provision, stating that convicted legislators must be immediately disqualified. The judgment emphasized that criminality in politics cannot be tolerated.
Analysis:
This ruling was a major step toward political accountability and electoral reforms. However, political parties continue to field candidates with criminal backgrounds, highlighting the need for further reforms.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
14. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) – Muslim Women’s Rights
Facts:
Shah Bano, a 62-year-old woman, was denied maintenance after being divorced by her husband under Islamic law. She filed a petition under Section 125 of the CrPC, which provides maintenance for women, children, and parents.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Shah Bano, stating that Muslim women were entitled to maintenance under secular law and not just under personal laws.
Analysis:
The ruling faced severe backlash from religious groups, leading to the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which diluted the impact of the judgment. However, the case remains a milestone in the debate on uniform civil laws.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
15. Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1989) – Bhopal Gas Tragedy
Facts:
The 1984 Bhopal Gas Tragedy caused thousands of deaths and long-term health issues due to a gas leak from Union Carbide’s pesticide plant. The Indian government, representing the victims, filed a case for compensation.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court approved a $470 million settlement between Union Carbide and the Indian government, citing urgency in providing relief.
Analysis:
While the settlement provided immediate compensation, it was criticized for being inadequate given the scale of the disaster. The case highlighted the need for stronger corporate accountability and industrial regulations.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
16. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) – Decriminalization of Adultery
Facts:
A petition was filed challenging Section 497 of the IPC, which criminalized adultery but only punished men, while treating women as victims.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 497, ruling that it violated Article 14 (equality), Article 15 (against discrimination), and Article 21 (personal liberty).
Analysis:
This case reinforced gender equality by recognizing the autonomy of women and treating marriage as a partnership rather than a patriarchal institution.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
17. Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011) – Euthanasia and Right to Die
Facts:
Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse, was in a vegetative state for over 40 years after being assaulted. A petition was filed requesting permission for passive euthanasia.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia under strict guidelines, recognizing it as part of the right to die with dignity under Article 21.
Analysis:
This case set the stage for future laws on euthanasia, leading to the legalization of passive euthanasia under strict conditions through the 2018 judgment in Common Cause v. Union of India.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
18. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) – Right to Livelihood
Facts:
Slum dwellers in Mumbai challenged the government’s eviction drive, arguing that it violated their right to livelihood.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that the right to livelihood is part of the right to life under Article 21.
Analysis:
This judgment expanded the scope of fundamental rights, recognizing socio-economic rights within the constitutional framework.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
19. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) – Custodial Violence
Facts:
A letter highlighting increasing custodial deaths and police brutality was treated as a PIL.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent custodial torture, including mandatory arrest procedures and legal rights awareness.
Analysis:
This ruling has played a crucial role in police accountability and protection of human rights in India.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
20. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004) – Cybercrime
Facts:
A woman was harassed through defamatory emails and messages. The accused was booked under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Judgment:
The accused was convicted, making it the first successful cyberstalking case in India.
Analysis:
This case set a precedent for cybercrime laws, ensuring digital safety and legal recourse for victims.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
More Judgements: https://www.sci.gov.in/landmark-judgment-summaries/
More Current Affairs: https://learnproacademy.in/updates/
———————————————————————————————————————————-