Landmark Cases

Question 1

Golaknath and State of Punjab 1967

Answer 1

Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could not restrict any of the Fundamental Rights of individuals enshrined in the Constitution.

Question 2

Keshavananda Bharti and State of Kerala 1973

Answer 2

Golaknath case was overruled and parliament recaptured the power of amending and by virtue of the amending power cannot change the basic structure of the constitution.

Question 3

Minerva Mills and Union of India 1980

Answer 3

Fortified the idea of the basic structure which was put forward earlier in the Keshavananda Bharti Case.

Question 4

Waman Rao and Union of India 1981

Answer 4

This case has facilitated in determining a satisfactory way of addressing grievances pertaining to the violation of fundamental rights.

Question 5

Mohd Ahmed Khan and Shah Bano Begum 1985

Answer 5

This case challenged the Muslim petition law.

Question 6

MC Mehta and Union Of India 1986

Answer 6

Enlarged the scope and sphere of Article 32 and Article 21 to incorporate the right to healthy and pollution-free environment.

Question 7

Indra Sawhney and Union of India 1992

Answer 7

It defined the “creamy layer” criteria and uphold the execution of the recommendations made by the Mandal Commission

Question 8

First Judges Case or S.P. Gupta case 1981

Answer 8

The ruling gave the Executive dominance over the Judiciary in judicial appointments for the next 12 years

Question 9

Second Judges Case or Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association versus Union of India 1993

Answer 9

The majority verdict gave back Chief Justice of India’s power over judicial appointments and transfers.

Question 10

Three judges case or Special Reference case of 1998

Answer 10

Chief Justice of India must check with a plurality of four senior-most Supreme Court judges to shape his opinion on judicial appointments and transfers.

Question 11

SR Bommai and Union of India 1994

Answer 11

This has created major repercussion on Center-State relations

Question 12

Vishaka and State of Rajasthan 1997

Answer 12

Introduction of Vishaka Guidelines and provided basic definitions of sexual harassment at the workplace

Question 13

Samatha and State of Andhra Pradesh 1997

Answer 13

SC declared that the 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.

Question 14

I.R Coelho and State of Tamil Nadu 2007

Answer 14

If a law is included in the 9th schedule of the Indian constitution, it can still be examined and confronted in court.

Question 15

Pedophilia case 2011

Answer 15

SC declared that the Children are the endowment to humanity. The sexual abuse of children is one of the most monstrous transgressions.

Question 16

NOTA- None-Of-The-Above Judgment 2013

Answer 16

An option of not voting for any candidate was given if they don’t find any of the apt candidates.

Question 17

Lily Thomas and Union Of India 2013

Answer 17

SC ruled that any Member of the legislative assembly, Member of a legislative council or Member of Parliament who was found guilty of a crime and given a minimum of two-year imprisonment, would lose membership of the House with an immediate effect

Question 18

Nirbhaya case March 2014

Answer 18

Introduction of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 and definition of rape under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Code of Criminal Procedures, 1973.

Question 19

National Legal Services Authority and Union of India April 2014

Answer 19

This case resulted in the recognition of transgender persons as a third gender. SC also instructed the government to treat them as minorities and expand the reservations in education, jobs, education etc

Question 20

Shreya Singhal and Union of India 2015

Answer 20

The controversial section 66A of the Information Technology Act which permitted arrests for unpleasant content posted on the internet was struck down as unconstitutional.

Question 21

Aruna Shanbaug Case

Answer 21

Along with guideline supreme court allowed passive euthanasia in the country.