Constitutional case laws

Question 1

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

Answer 1

Issue: Basic Structure Doctrine
Crux: This case established the “Basic Structure Doctrine,” holding that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter the basic structure or fundamental framework. The case protected the core values of the Constitution, like democracy, rule of law, and the separation of powers.

Question 2

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)

Answer 2

Crux: The case dealt with the interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). The Supreme Court initially took a narrow view, ruling that Article 21 does not include procedural due process, allowing preventive detention.

Question 3

Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)

Answer 3

Crux: The first case to question whether fundamental rights can be amended under Article 368. The Court upheld the constitutional amendment’s validity, ruling that Parliament can amend fundamental rights.

Question 4

Berubari union Case 1960

Answer 4

The case involved the exchange of territory between India and Pakistan under the Nehru-Noon Agreement. The Court held that ceding territory required a constitutional amendment.

Question 5

Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)

Answer 5

Similar to Shankari Prasad, this case questioned Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights. The Court upheld that constitutional amendments could alter fundamental rights.

Question 6

Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)

Answer 6

The Supreme Court reversed its earlier stance and ruled that Parliament could not amend Part III of the Constitution (Fundamental Rights), emphasizing the supremacy of these rights.

Question 7

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

Answer 7

The case questioned the constitutionality of the 39th Amendment, which sought to protect the Prime Minister’s election from judicial scrutiny. The Court struck down the amendment as it violated the basic structure.

Question 8

Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)

Answer 8

Crux: The Court reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine and struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment, which gave Parliament unlimited amending power, ruling that judicial review is part of the basic structure.

Question 8

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

Answer 8

• This case broadened the scope of Article 21 by introducing the “due process” concept. The Court held that the right to life and personal liberty cannot be curtailed except by fair, just, and reasonable law.
  -Interrelationship between Fundamental Rights (Articles 14, 19, and 21)
  -Arbitrariness Violates Equality (Article 14)
• Right to travel abroad also a part of this right

Question 9

S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982)

Answer 9

Known as the “Judges Transfer Case,” this case expanded the scope of judicial independence, ruling that the judiciary should not be overly influenced by the executive branch.

Question 10

Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

Answer 10

The Court discussed the misuse of Article 356 (President’s Rule) and laid down guidelines to prevent arbitrary dismissal of state governments, ensuring the integrity of federalism.

Question 11

A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988)

Answer 11

This case involved the jurisdiction of special courts to try specific cases and discussed the principles of fair trial under Article 21. The Court held that every accused is entitled to a fair, speedy trial.

Question 12

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)

Answer 12

The Court laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment of women at the workplace, as there were no existing laws to address the issue at that time.

Question 12

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

Answer 12

(Mandal Commission case)
This case dealt with the validity of reservations for OBCs in government jobs. The Court upheld the Mandal Commission’s recommendations but introduced the “creamy layer” concept to exclude affluent individuals.

Question 13

I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)

Answer 13

The Court held that any law placed in the Ninth Schedule (which grants immunity from judicial review) after the Kesavananda Bharati judgment must still adhere to the Basic Structure Doctrine.

Question 13

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017)

Answer 13

This landmark judgment recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution, part of the right to life and liberty under Article 21.

Question 14

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)

Answer 14

Case that decriminalised the Section 377 - gave LGBTQ+ people their rights

Question 15

Sabarimala Temple Case: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018)

Answer 15

The Supreme Court held that the practice of excluding women of menstruating age from entering the Sabarimala Temple violated their right to equality and freedom of religion.

Question 15

Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)

Answer 15

The Supreme Court declared the practice of instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) unconstitutional, ruling that it violated the rights of Muslim women to equality and dignity.

Question 15

Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)

Answer 15

The Court struck down Section 497 of the IPC, which criminalized adultery, ruling that the provision was unconstitutional as it violated the dignity and autonomy of individuals.

Question 15

Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992)

Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)
Crux: This case further elaborated on the right to education, leading to the recognition of the right to free and compulsory education for children up to the age of 14.

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Crux: The Court discussed the scope of Article 356 (President’s Rule) and its misuse, laying down strict guidelines to prevent arbitrary dismissals of state governments.

Answer 15

Crux: This case established that the right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21, and the state has a duty to provide it.

Question 17

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

Answer 17

Crux: The Court discussed the scope of Article 356 (President’s Rule) and its misuse, laying down strict guidelines to prevent arbitrary dismissals of state governments.

Question 17

Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)

Answer 17

Crux: This case further elaborated on the right to education, leading to the recognition of the right to free and compulsory education for children up to the age of 14.

Question 17

R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970)

Answer 17

Crux: The Supreme Court struck down the nationalization of banks as unconstitutional, and this case broadened the interpretation of Article 31 (right to property).

Question 19

State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)

Answer 19

Crux: The Supreme Court ruled that caste-based reservations in government jobs violated Article 15, which prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, etc.

Question 20

Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014)

Answer 20

Crux: The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Right to Education Act, 2009, with respect to private unaided minority institutions.

Question 20

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)

Answer 20

Crux: This case established the principle of absolute liability in environmental law following the Oleum Gas leak, holding that hazardous industries must compensate victims even without fault.

Question 20

State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952)

Answer 20

Crux: The Court dealt with Article 14 (Right to Equality) and ruled against arbitrary classification of cases for trial by special courts.

Question 21

State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977)

Answer 21

Crux: The case emphasized the federal structure of India and how the central government must respect state autonomy under the Constitution.

Question 22

People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2003)

Answer 22

Crux: The case dealt with the violation of privacy through phone tapping and highlighted the importance of safeguarding citizens' fundamental rights.

Question 22

State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh (1953)

Answer 22

Crux: The Court dealt with preventive detention and reinforced the principles laid down in A.K. Gopalan, later modified in Maneka Gandhi’s case.

Question 22

Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978)

Answer 22

Crux: This case reinforced the right against self-incrimination (Article 20(3)) and the accused's right to silence during investigation.

Question 23

S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989)

Answer 23

Crux: This case upheld the right to freedom of speech and expression, emphasizing the importance of protecting free speech even in the face of public disorder.

Question 24

Attorney General of India v. Lachma Devi (1986)

Answer 24

Crux: The Court ruled that execution by public hanging was unconstitutional, as it violated the right to dignity and humane treatment.

Question 24

Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995)

Answer 24

Crux: This case dealt with the issue of bigamy under personal law and reaffirmed that conversion to Islam cannot be used to bypass the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Question 24

Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992)

Answer 24

Crux: This case upheld the validity of the Anti-Defection Law (Tenth Schedule), stating that it is essential to maintain political stability in the country.

Question 25

Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986)

Answer 25

Crux: The Court ruled that students cannot be compelled to sing the national anthem if it violates their religious beliefs, affirming freedom of religion under Article 25.

Question 26

ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)

Answer 26

Crux: Also known as the Habeas Corpus case, the Court controversially ruled that during the Emergency, citizens’ right to life could be suspended. This judgment was later discredited.

Question 26

Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983)

Answer 26

Crux: The Supreme Court struck down Section 303 of the IPC, which mandated the death penalty for life convicts committing murder, ruling it unconstitutional.

Question 27

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

Answer 27

66A - made it a punishable offence for any person to send offensive information using a computer or any other electronic device. Crux: The Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, ruling that it violated the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).

Question 27

Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)

Answer 27

Crux: The Court recognized the right to die with dignity and allowed passive euthanasia under strict guidelines, marking a historic shift in India’s legal stance on end-of-life decisions.

Question 27

Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)

Answer 27

Crux: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sedition law (Section 124A of the IPC) but limited its application to acts involving incitement to violence or public disorder.

Question 27

Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1997)

Answer 27

Crux: The Court laid down guidelines to insulate the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) from political influence, ensuring its independence.

Question 28

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015)

Answer 28

Crux: The Court struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), affirming that the collegium system for appointing judges is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Question 28

Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2009)

Answer 28

Crux: This case initially decriminalized consensual homosexual activity, though it was later overturned before being reinstated in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018).

Question 29

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Answer 29

Crux: Although a U.S. case, it is often referenced in Indian courts for its impact on privacy and women’s reproductive rights, particularly concerning abortion laws.

Question 29

Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011)

Answer 29

Crux: The Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia for patients in a permanent vegetative state under strict medical and judicial oversight.

Question 30

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

Answer 30

Crux: This landmark case upheld the 27% reservation for OBCs in government jobs, while also establishing the principle that caste-based reservations cannot exceed 50%.

Question 30

Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008)

Answer 30

Crux: This case upheld the constitutional validity of reservations in higher educational institutions under the 93rd Constitutional Amendment but with a "creamy layer" exclusion for OBCs.

Question 31

I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)

Answer 31

Crux: This case ruled that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule are subject to judicial review if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

Question 32

Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006)

Answer 32

Crux: The Court held that the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly by the Governor was unconstitutional, reaffirming the principles of federalism and constitutional governance.

Question 33

Rajbala v. State of Haryana (2015)

Answer 33

Crux: The Court upheld Haryana’s law disqualifying individuals from contesting panchayat elections based on educational qualifications, reinforcing that reasonable restrictions on rights are permissible.

Question 34

Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967)

Answer 34

Crux: The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution, thereby making them unamendable.

Question 35

Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)

Answer 35

Crux: The Court struck down amendments that gave Parliament unlimited amending powers, reinforcing that the Constitution’s basic structure cannot be altered by amendments.

Question 36

State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976)

Answer 36

Crux: The Court held that reservations could be extended to promotions in government jobs, thus expanding the scope of Article 16 (Right to Equality in Employment).

Question 37

Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013)

Answer 37

Crux: This case declared that a convicted MP/MLA will be immediately disqualified from holding office, thus striking down a provision that allowed them to continue during the pendency of an appeal.

Question 38

Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)

Answer 38

Crux: The Court upheld the constitutional validity of reservations for SCs/STs in promotions, while mandating that the state must demonstrate backwardness and inadequate representation.

Question 39

A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988)

Answer 39

Crux: The case involved the right to a fair trial and due process under Article 21, and it laid down guidelines to prevent the misuse of the judicial process.

Question 40

Subhash Sharma v. Union of India (1991)

Answer 40

Crux: The case dealt with the process of judicial appointments, emphasizing the importance of consultation between the Executive and Judiciary to ensure impartiality in appointments.

Question 41

P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005)

Answer 41

Crux: This case clarified that private unaided institutions are not bound by government reservations in admissions, ensuring the autonomy of educational institutions.

Question 42

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)

Answer 42

Crux: The Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty under "rarest of rare" cases, providing guidelines on when it can be imposed.

Question 43

Nand Kumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012)

Answer 43

Crux: This case upheld the rule of law and the principle that a state must provide fair compensation when acquiring land under Article 300A.

Question 44

State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977)

Answer 44

Crux: The Supreme Court ruled that the use of Article 356 (President's Rule) cannot be challenged in the Court except on grounds of mala fides or arbitrariness.

Question 45

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)

Answer 45

Crux: This case held that the tribunals set up under the Constitution do not have the authority to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court.

Question 46

T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002)

Answer 46

Crux: The Court laid down the principles for regulating the admissions and administration of private unaided educational institutions, ensuring their right to autonomy.

Question 47

Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2005)

Answer 47

Crux: This case provided clarification on the age of juveniles under the Juvenile Justice Act, ruling that the age must be considered as of the date of commission of the offense.

Question 48

Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002)

Answer 48

Crux: The case established the doctrine of "curative petitions," providing a remedy for grievous injustice after the dismissal of review petitions.

Question 49

Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab (2000)

Answer 49

Crux: This case reinforced the power of the Supreme Court to provide compensation for violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 32.

Question 50

Arvind P. Datar v. Union of India (2019)

Answer 50

Crux: The case dealt with the conflict between privacy and public safety and highlighted the importance of balancing individual rights with national security concerns.

Question 51

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)

Answer 51

Crux: The Court laid down guidelines to be followed by law enforcement agencies to prevent custodial violence and safeguard the rights of detainees under Article 21.

Question 52

Union of India v. K.S. Subramanian (1976)

Answer 52

Crux: This case dealt with the interpretation of the Constitution regarding service law, emphasizing the importance of uniformity and equality in promotions.

Question 53

* Rajesh Sharma v. State of UP (2017)

Answer 53

Crux: The case provided guidelines to prevent the misuse of Section 498A of the IPC (cruelty to women), ensuring that innocent individuals are not harassed.

Question 54

Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)

Answer 54

Crux: The Supreme Court struck down Section 497 (Adultery) of the IPC, ruling it unconstitutional as it violated the right to equality and personal liberty.

Question 55

Re: Presidential Reference (1998)

Answer 55

Crux: This case clarified the scope of judicial review concerning appointments to the higher judiciary and reinforced the collegium system for judicial appointments.

Question 56

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

Answer 56

Crux: The Court held that the "right to life and personal liberty" under Article 21 could not be deprived except by just, fair, and reasonable procedure, expanding the scope of Article 21.

Question 57

Keshav Singh v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly (1965)

Answer 57

Crux: The Supreme Court ruled that the legislature does not have the power to punish individuals in a way that overrides constitutional protections, reinforcing the principle of judicial review.

Question 58

Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985)

Answer 58

Crux: This case upheld the right of a Muslim woman to claim maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the CrPC, even after divorce, ensuring the protection of basic rights for all women.

Question 59

Union of India v. Naveen Jindal (2004)

Answer 59

Crux: The Court ruled that flying the national flag is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a), symbolizing freedom of expression.

Question 60

Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994)

Answer 60

Crux: The validity of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) was upheld, balancing the need for stringent laws against terrorism with human rights.

Question 61

Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. Workmen (1979)

Answer 61

Crux: The Court dealt with labor rights under Article 19 and ensured that reasonable restrictions on such rights are allowed to ensure public interest and security.

Question 62

Hinsa Virodhak Sangh v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2008)

Answer 62

Crux: The Court upheld a ban on the slaughter of certain animals during a religious festival, recognizing the importance of public morality and religious sentiment in Indian society.

Question 63

Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992)

Answer 63

Crux: The Court declared the right to education as a part of the "right to life" under Article 21, laying the groundwork for future educational rights legislation.

Question 64

B. R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu (2001)

Answer 64

Crux: The Court disqualified a Chief Minister (Jayalalithaa) from holding office due to conviction in a criminal case, emphasizing accountability in political leadership.

Question 65

Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011)

Answer 65

Crux: The Court declared the Salwa Judum (anti-Maoist militia) illegal, upholding human rights and condemning the use of vigilante groups for law enforcement purposes.

Question 66

Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001)

Answer 66

Crux: The case provided guidelines on proportionality in administrative law, emphasizing that administrative actions should not be excessive or arbitrary.

Question 67

Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2009)

Answer 67

Crux: The Delhi High Court decriminalized homosexuality under Section 377, making it a landmark judgment for LGBTQ+ rights, though this was later overruled in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013).

Question 68

Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017)

Answer 68

Crux: The Supreme Court held that the mandatory six-month waiting period for divorce by mutual consent could be waived under certain circumstances, streamlining the divorce process.

Question 69

Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980)

Answer 69

Crux: The Court ruled that handcuffing a prisoner without reasonable justification is unconstitutional, reinforcing the dignity of individuals even while under arrest.

Question 70

Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975)

Answer 70

Crux: The Court recognized the right to privacy as part of the "right to life" under Article 21, though it can be restricted in the interest of public safety and law and order.

Question 71

Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978)

Answer 71

Crux: The case laid down important guidelines for the treatment of prisoners, emphasizing humane conditions in jails and the right against solitary confinement.

Question 72

People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2003)

Answer 72

Crux: The Court recognized the right to food as a part of Article 21 and issued directives to the government to provide food security under the public distribution system.

Question 73

Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2016)

Answer 73

Crux: This case dealt with the issue of tax on goods in transit between states, and the Court ruled that such taxes should not violate the freedom of trade and commerce guaranteed under Article 301

Question 74

Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000)

Answer 74

Crux: The Court upheld the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam, balancing the need for development with the rights of displaced individuals, and held that displacement is justified if proper rehabilitation is ensured.

Question 75

Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)

Answer 75

Crux: The Court recognized the right to die with dignity and upheld passive euthanasia, laying down guidelines for executing living wills.

Question 76

Ram Prasad Seth v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1957)

Answer 76

Crux: This case addressed the constitutionality of preventive detention laws, asserting that such laws should not infringe on the right to personal liberty arbitrarily.

Question 77

Narendra Kumar v. Union of India (1960)

Answer 77

Crux: The Court held that the state can impose restrictions on individual freedoms in the interest of public welfare, provided such restrictions are reasonable.