Judgements Flashcards
(42 cards)
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)
Constitutional Issue:
* Whether restrictions on press freedom violated Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech & Expression).
📌 Key Facts:
* Madras government banned “Cross Roads” magazine, citing public safety concerns.
* Romesh Thappar challenged the ban, arguing it infringed on press freedom.
⚖️ Verdict:
* Supreme Court ruled that freedom of speech & expression includes press freedom.
* Struck down the ban, stating restrictions must be based on Article 19(2).
📚 Significance:
* First case on free speech post-independence.
* Led to the First Amendment (1951), adding ‘public order’ as a restriction in Article 19(2).
A.K Gopalan Case (1950)
Constitutional Issue:
* Whether preventive detention violated Article 21 (Right to Life & Personal Liberty).
* Whether Fundamental Rights are interlinked or operate separately.
📌 Key Facts:
* A.K. Gopalan, a communist leader, was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
* He challenged his detention, arguing it violated Articles 19, 21, and 22.
⚖️ Verdict:
* Supreme Court upheld preventive detention, ruling that Article 21 only requires a law, even if unjust.
* Fundamental Rights were considered separate and not interconnected.
📚 Significance:
* Allowed government broad powers over detention.
* Overruled in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), which established due process & interconnected rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)
Constitutional Issue : Validity of the First Amendment, specifically Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368.
Verdict: Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment, ruling that Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
Key Facts : Challenged the First Amendment that restricted property rights and added land reform laws to the Ninth Schedule.
Significance : Laid the foundation for future amendments and judicial debates on the scope of Parliament’s powers
Case: State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)
Constitutional Issue:
* Whether state-imposed caste-based quotas in educational institutions violated Article 15(1).
📌 Key Facts:
* The State of Madras reserved seats in educational institutions based on caste.
* Challenged by Champakam Dorairajan.
⚖️ Verdict:
* Supreme Court struck down caste-based quotas as unconstitutional under Article 15(1), which prohibits discrimination.
📚 Significance:
* Led to the First Amendment (1951), enabling caste-based reservations under Article 15(4).
Case: Berubari Union Case (1960)
📝 Constitutional Issue:
* Whether the Preamble is part of the Constitution.
* Can Parliament cede Indian territory under Article 368?
📌 Key Facts:
* Nehru-Noon Agreement proposed transferring the Berubari Union to Pakistan.
* Issue referred to the Supreme Court for advisory opinion.
⚖️ Verdict:
* Supreme Court ruled Preamble is NOT enforceable.
* Cession of territory requires a constitutional amendment.
📚 Significance:
* Clarified the legal status of the Preamble.
* Established that altering India’s boundaries needs a constitutional amendment
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961)
📝 Constitutional & Legal Issues:
* Whether Nanavati’s act was murder (Section 302 IPC) or culpable homicide (Section 304 IPC).
* Jury trial validity and executive clemency powers.
📌 Key Facts:
* Commander K.M. Nanavati, a naval officer, shot Prem Ahuja after discovering his affair with Nanavati’s wife, Sylvia.
* Nanavati claimed it was an impulsive act, not premeditated murder.
* The jury acquitted Nanavati, but the Bombay High Court overturned it, convicting him for murder.
⚖️ Verdict:
* Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s conviction, stating it was a premeditated murder.
* Ended the jury trial system in India due to public & media influence.
📚 Significance:
* One of India’s most sensational criminal cases.
* Clarified judicial vs. executive powers in granting pardons (Article 161).
* Changed India’s criminal justice system, shifting towards judge-led trials.
Case: Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)
Case: Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)
📝 Constitutional Issue:
* Validity of the 17th Amendment and whether Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights was unlimited.
📌 Key Facts:
* Challenged land reform laws in the Ninth Schedule under the 17th Amendment, which restricted property rights.
⚖️ Verdict:
* Supreme Court upheld the 17th Amendment, ruling that Parliament had the authority to amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368.
📚 Significance:
* Laid the groundwork for future cases like Golak Nath and Kesavananda Bharati by addressing limits on Parliament’s powers.
Case: I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967)
Constitutional Issue:
* Whether Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368.
📌 Key Facts:
* Petitioners challenged the 17th Amendment, which curtailed property rights, arguing that Fundamental Rights were immutable.
⚖️ Verdict:
* Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights, marking a major departure from earlier cases.
📚 Significance:
* Set limits on Parliament’s amending power, leading to the 24th Amendment and eventual clarification in Kesavananda Bharati.
Case: R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970)
Constitutional Issue:
* Whether nationalization of banks violated the right to property (Article 31) and the right to trade (Article 19).
📌 Key Facts:
* Government nationalized 14 major banks, challenged by R.C. Cooper on the grounds of Fundamental Rights violations.
⚖️ Verdict:
* Supreme Court ruled that nationalization violated property rights but upheld the government’s authority with compensation.
📚 Significance:
* Reinforced that property rights were fundamental but could be regulated under specific circumstances with compensation.
Case: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Constitutional Issue:
* Whether Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was unlimited.
📌 Key Facts:
* Swami Kesavananda Bharati challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act, arguing it infringed on property and religious rights.
⚖️ Verdict:
* Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution but could not alter its ‘basic structure’.
📌 Preamble as Part of the Constitution:
* Declared that the Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution, unlike the earlier Berubari Union Case ruling.
📚 Significance:
* Introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, placing limitations on Parliament’s amending power to safeguard democracy.
Case: Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Constitutional Issue:
* Whether election disputes involving the Prime Minister could be beyond judicial review.
* Validity of the 39th Amendment, which placed elections of key officials beyond court scrutiny.
📌 Key Facts:
* Raj Narain challenged Indira Gandhi’s 1971 election victory, alleging electoral malpractices.
* Allahabad High Court found her guilty and disqualified her from holding office.
* During the Emergency (1975), the government passed the 39th Amendment, barring courts from hearing election disputes related to the President, Prime Minister, and Speaker.
⚖️ Verdict:
* Supreme Court struck down the 39th Amendment as unconstitutional, reaffirming the Basic Structure Doctrine.
* Indira Gandhi’s election was validated on other legal grounds, but the principle of judicial review was upheld.
📚 Significance:
* Reaffirmed judicial supremacy and limited Parliament’s amending power.
* Strengthened the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring free and fair elections remain justiciable.
* Paved the way for future amendments curbing emergency-era excesses.
Case: ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)
📝 Constitutional Issue:
* Whether the suspension of the right to life under Article 21 during an Emergency was valid.
📌 Key Facts:
* During the Emergency (1975-1977), habeas corpus petitions were filed challenging detentions without trial.
⚖️ Verdict:
* Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government, holding that Fundamental Rights, including the right to life, could be suspended during an Emergency.
📚 Significance:
* Widely criticized for undermining civil liberties.
* Later overturned in the 44th Amendment, which limited Emergency powers.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
📝 Constitutional Issue:
* Whether the right to personal liberty under Article 21 includes procedural fairness.
📌 Key Facts:
* Maneka Gandhi’s passport was confiscated without a hearing, prompting her to challenge the decision as a violation of Fundamental Rights.
⚖️ Verdict:
* Supreme Court ruled that ‘procedure established by law’ under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable.
📚 Significance:
* Expanded the interpretation of Article 21, linking it to Articles 14 and 19.
* Established the foundation for future rights-based cases.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
Constitutional Issue:
* Whether Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution could override the Basic Structure Doctrine.
📌 Key Facts:
* Minerva Mills was nationalized under a law that limited judicial review.
* The challenge focused on the 42nd Amendment, which gave Parliament unrestricted amending powers.
⚖️ Verdict:
* Supreme Court struck down sections of the 42nd Amendment, ruling that judicial review and the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are part of the Basic Structure.
📚 Significance:
* Reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine.
* Emphasized that neither Parliament nor Fundamental Rights can be absolute.
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
Constitutional Issue:
* Validity of the death penalty under Article 21 and its compatibility with the right to life.
📌 Key Facts:
* Bachan Singh, sentenced to death for murder, challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty, arguing it violated the right to life.
⚖️ Verdict:
* Supreme Court upheld the death penalty as constitutional but introduced the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine to limit its application.
📚 Significance:
* Set guidelines on when the death penalty can be imposed, ensuring its limited use under strict conditions.
Case: Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) (Mandal Commission Case)
Constitutional Issue:
* Validity of reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) under Articles 15 and 16.
📌 Key Facts:
* Mandal Commission recommended 27% reservation for OBCs, which was challenged on grounds of fairness and efficiency.
⚖️ Verdict:
* Supreme Court upheld the reservation for OBCs but introduced the ‘creamy layer’ concept to exclude affluent sections.
📚 Significance:
* Balanced affirmative action with merit by refining the reservation policy, ensuring equitable benefits.
Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981)
Constitutional Issue:
* Validity of laws placed in the Ninth Schedule post Kesavananda Bharati case (1973).
* Application of the Basic Structure Doctrine to laws enacted before and after April 24, 1973.
📌 Key Facts:
* Petitioners challenged land reform laws, arguing that they violated Fundamental Rights.
* The government had placed these laws under the Ninth Schedule, claiming they were immune from judicial review.
* Supreme Court had earlier established the Basic Structure Doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), restricting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
⚖️ Verdict:
* Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule before April 24, 1973, were upheld as valid.
* Laws added after April 24, 1973, were subject to judicial review if they violated the Basic Structure Doctrine.
📚 Significance:
* First major application of the Basic Structure Doctrine after Kesavananda Bharati.
* Limited Parliament’s power to shield laws from judicial scrutiny.
* Clarified the retrospective application of the doctrine, ensuring protection of Fundamental Rights.
Case: Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Female Workers (2000)
Constitutional Issue:
* Whether maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act applied to female workers under Article 21.
📌 Key Facts:
* Female workers sought maternity leave benefits, which were denied, leading to a legal challenge.
⚖️ Verdict:
* Supreme Court ruled that denial of maternity benefits violated the right to life and dignity under Article 21.
📚 Significance:
* Expanded the scope of Article 21 by linking maternity benefits to the fundamental right to life and human dignity.
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002)
Constitutional Issue:
* Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions under Articles 29 and 30.
📌 Key Facts:
* Minority educational institutions challenged government regulations affecting their autonomy in admissions and administration.
⚖️ Verdict:
* Supreme Court ruled that minorities have the fundamental right to establish and administer educational institutions, subject to reasonable regulation.
📚 Significance:
* Clarified the scope of minority rights and set guidelines for the extent of government regulation over educational institutions.
Case: I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
Constitutional Issue:
* Whether laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 1973 are subject to judicial review.
📌 Key Facts:
* Petitioners argued that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule should not be immune to judicial review if they violate Fundamental Rights.
⚖️ Verdict:
* Supreme Court ruled that laws added to the Ninth Schedule after 1973 are subject to judicial review if they violate the Basic Structure.
📚 Significance:
* Reaffirmed the supremacy of the Basic Structure Doctrine and ensured protection of Fundamental Rights.
Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011)
Constitutional Issue:
* Whether the use of state-sponsored militias violates the right to life under Article 21.
📌 Key Facts:
* Petitioners challenged the Chhattisgarh government’s use of armed civilian militias (Salwa Judum) to combat Naxal insurgency.
⚖️ Verdict:
* Supreme Court declared the state’s support for Salwa Judum unconstitutional, holding it violated human rights and the rule of law.
📚 Significance:
* Emphasized that the state cannot abdicate its responsibility for law and order by arming civilians.
Case: Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Constitutional Issue:
* Whether the right to privacy is a Fundamental Right under the Constitution.
📌 Key Facts:
* Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a retired judge, challenged the Aadhaar scheme, arguing it infringed on citizens’ privacy.
⚖️ Verdict:
* Supreme Court unanimously declared that the right to privacy is protected under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
📚 Significance:
* Expanded civil liberties, influencing data protection, surveillance, and individual rights.
Case: Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)
Constitutional Issue:
* Whether the practice of triple talaq (instant divorce) violated Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21.
📌 Key Facts:
* Shayara Bano challenged the constitutional validity of triple talaq, arguing it discriminated against Muslim women.
⚖️ Verdict:
* Supreme Court struck down the practice of triple talaq as unconstitutional and violative of gender equality.
📚 Significance:
* A major victory for women’s rights, setting a precedent for gender equality and non-discrimination in personal laws.
Case: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) (Sabarimala Case)
Constitutional Issue:
* Whether the exclusion of women from the Sabarimala Temple violated Articles 14, 15, and 25.
📌 Key Facts:
* The temple barred entry to women of menstruating age, which was challenged as discriminatory.
⚖️ Verdict:
* Supreme Court ruled that the practice violated women’s rights to equality and freedom of religion.
📚 Significance:
* Reinforced gender equality in religious practices and challenged traditional restrictions against women.
