IAS Mentorship

With Reyasat Ali Sir & Experienced Team in CSE Prep

Important Judicial Pronouncements

Sr No Case Verdict

1 A.K. Gopalan Case (1950) In this case SC held that there was no violation of Fundamental
Rights enshrined in Articles 13, 19, 21 and 22 under the provisions
of the Preventive Detention Act, if the detention was as per the
procedure established by law. Here, the SC took a narrow view of
Article 21.
2 Shankari Prasad Case (1951) In this case First Amendment’s validity was challenged. The SC held
that the Parliament’s power to amend under Article 368 also includes
the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III of
the Constitution.

3 Romesh Thapar v State of The SC ruled that the imposition of pre-censorship on a journal is a
Madras (1950) restriction on the liberty of the press, which is an essential part of the
right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1)(a).
4 Kedar Nath Singh vs State The Supreme Court ruled that the penalization of sedition is a
Of Bihar (1962) constitutionally valid restriction on the right to freedom of expression
only when the words are intended to disturb public peace by violence.
5 Golaknath case (1967) In this case SC had to deal with whether amendment is a law or not;
and whether Fundamental Rights can be amended. SC held that
Fundamental Rights are not amenable to the Parliamentary restriction
as stated in Article 13, and that to amend the Fundamental rights a
new Constituent Assembly would be required. Also stated that
Article 368 gives the procedure to amend the Constitution but does
not confer on Parliament the power to amend the Constitution.
6 Kesavananda Bharati The SC ruled that although no part of the Constitution, including
case (1973) Fundamental Rights, was beyond the Parliament’s amending power,
the “basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even
by a constitutional amendment.” This is the basis in Indian law in
which the judiciary can strike down any amendment passed by
Parliament that is in conflict with the basic structure of the
Constitution. Thus, SC introduced Doctrine of Basic Structure.
7 Maneka Gandhi vs UoI case SC held that - ‘Procedure established by law’ is within the meaning
(1978) of Article 21 and must be ‘right and just and fair’ and ‘not arbitrary,
fanciful or oppressive’ otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and
the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied. This ruling
brought Due Process of law in the domain of India along with the
procedure established by the law.
8 Minerva Mills case (1980) In this case SC reiterated the Basic Structure doctrine. The judgement
struck down 2 changes made to the Constitution by the 42nd
Amendment Act 1976, declaring them to be violative of the basic
structure. The judgement makes it clear that the Constitution, and not
the Parliament is supreme.
9 Machhi Singh vs State of Supreme Court ruled that in the rarest of rare cases, when the
Punjab (1983) collective conscience of the community is so shocked that it will
expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death
penalty, then death penalty may be sanctioned.

IAS Mentorship www.iasmentorship.com Telegram WhatsApp Call 8090528260

 IAS Mentorship
With Reyasat Ali Sir & Experienced Team in CSE Prep

10 Shah Bano Begum case (1985) The SC upheld the right to alimony for a Muslim woman and said
that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is applicable to all citizens
irrespective of their religion.
11 Indira Sawhney vs Union of SC examined the scope and extent of Article 16(4), which provides
India case (1992) or Mandal for the reservation of jobs in favour of backward classes. It upheld
Commission Judgement the constitutional validity of 27% reservation for the OBCs with
certain conditions (like creamy layer exclusion, no reservation in
promotion, total reserved quota should not exceed 50%, etc.)
12 Supreme Court Advocates-on It overruled S P Gupta v. Union of India. Supreme Court held primacy
Record Association v. Union of Chief justice cannot be taken away in appointment and transfer of
of India, 1993 judges of Supreme Court and High Courts. It recommended the
constitution of collegiums of judges for the same. The case is named
as the Second judge transfer case. It was later overruled a committee
called NJAC was appointed for appointment and transfer of judges of
Supreme Court and High Courts. It was again overruled and NJAC
was held unconstitutional in Supreme Court Advocates-on Record
Association v. Union of India, 2014
13 S R Bommai vs Union of This verdict was related to the Centre-State relation, SC concluded
India (1994) that the power of the President to dismiss a State government is not
absolute. The verdict said the President should exercise the power
only after his proclamation (imposing his/her rule) is approved by
both Houses of Parliament. Till then, the Court said, the President
can only suspend the Legislative Assembly by suspending the
provisions of the Constitution relating to the Legislative Assembly.
14 Vishaka and State of This verdict sometimes refers as judicial activism, in this case SC
Rajasthan (1997) dealt with sexual harassment at the workplace. The SC gave a set of
guidelines for employers – as well as other responsible persons or
institutions – to immediately ensure the prevention of sexual
harassment. These are called ‘Vishaka Guidelines’. These were to
be considered law until appropriate legislation was enacted.
15 L Chandra Kumar Case The SC ruled that the power of judicial review vested in the Supreme
(1997) Court and High Courts by Articles 32 and 226 respectively is a part
of the basic structure of the Constitution.
16 I.R Coelho Vs State of Tamil This judgement held that if a law is included in the 9th Schedule of
Nadu 2007 the Indian Constitution, it can still be examined and confronted in
court.
17 M. Nagaraj vs Union of India SC validated parliament’s decision to extend reservations for SCs
Case (2006) and STs to include promotions with three riders.

18 Aruna Shanbaug Case (2011) The SC allowed passive euthanasia with guidelines, further it held
that individuals had a right to die with dignity.

19 Lily Thomas and Union of The SC ruled that any MLA, MLC or MP who was found guilty of a
India (2013) crime and given a minimum of 2-year imprisonment would cease to
be a member of the House with immediate effect.
20 SK Koushal v Naz foundation In this case Supreme Court overturned the Delhi High Court case
case 377 (2013) Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi which upheld Section 377
of the Indian Penal Code – which criminalized consensual
homosexual sex between adults.
21 National Legal Services This case resulted in the recognition of transgender persons as a third
Authority Vs Union of India gender. The SC also instructed the government to treat them as
(2014)

IAS Mentorship www.iasmentorship.com Telegram WhatsApp Call 8090528260

 IAS Mentorship
With Reyasat Ali Sir & Experienced Team in CSE Prep

minorities and expand the reservations in education, jobs, education,

etc.

22 Navtej Singh Johar vs Union In this verdict, the Supreme Court scrapped the controversial Section
of India (2017) 377– a 158-yearold colonial law on consensual gay sex. The
Supreme Court reversed its own decision and said Section 377 is
irrational and arbitrary.
23 People’s Union of Civil SC held that Right to vote also includes a right not to vote and remain
Liberties vs Union of India neutral. Right to secrecy is the integral part of free and fair elections.
case (2013) People who didn't vote shouldn't be victimized.
24 Shreya Singhal vs UoI The SC declared Section 66A of IT Act as unconstitutional and struck
(2015) it down.

25 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy The Supreme Court of India held that “the right to privacy is protected
(Retd) vs UoI (2017) as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under
Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the
Constitution”.
26 Triple Talaq ShayaraBano The Supreme Court declared, by a majority of 3:2 that divorce
Case (2017) through instant triple talaq among Muslims would be "void", "illegal"
and "unconstitutional".
27 Indian Young Lawyers The Supreme Court held that the restriction of women in Sabarimala
Association vs. the State of Temple is unconstitutional. It held that the practice violated the
Kerala, (2018) (Sabarimala fundamental rights to equality, liberty and freedom of religion,
temple case) Articles 14, 15, 19(1), 21 and 25(1). It struck down Rule 3(b) of the
Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Act as unconstitutional. Rule
3(b) allowed for Hindu denominations to exclude women from public
places of worship, if the exclusion was based on ‘custom’. The Apex
Court has allowed entry of women of all age groups to the Sabarimala
Temple, and held that “Devotion cannot be subjected to Gender
Discrimination.”
28 Extra Judicial Execution In this case (related to AFPSA) SC held that Every death caused by
Victim vs Union of India the armed forces in a disturbed area, whether the victim is a dreaded
(2018) criminal or a militant or a terrorist or an insurgent, should be
thoroughly enquired.
29 Lt. Governor - Govt of NCT of Supreme Court Called for Constitutional pragmatism and underlining
Delhi vs UoI - 2018 the clear separation of powers, it further held that “the status of the
Lieutenant Governor of Delhi is not that of a Governor of a State,
rather he remains an Administrator, in a limited sense, working with
the designation of Lieutenant Governor”.
30 Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of The Supreme Court of India declared that access to the Internet is a
India (2020) fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution. It further held
that Section 144 CrPC cannot be used indefinitely to suppress
freedom of speech and expression and difference of opinion.
31 The Chief Election The Court held that freedom of speech and expression also extends to
Commissioner of India v. MR reporting the proceedings that happen in courts including oral
Vijayabhaskar 2021 observations made by judges.
32 Mohammad Salimullah Vs. The Supreme Court, while hearing a case challenging the decision to
Union of India 2021 deport Rohingya refugees, held while fundamental rights under
Articles 14 and 21 are available to all persons whether citizens or not,
the 'right not to be deported' is ancillary or concomitant to the right to
reside or settle in any part of the territory of India guaranteed under
Article 19(1)(e) and is available only to citizens.

IAS Mentorship www.iasmentorship.com Telegram WhatsApp Call 8090528260

 IAS Mentorship
With Reyasat Ali Sir & Experienced Team in CSE Prep

33 Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court struck down the Maratha
The Chief Minister - 2021 reservation quota and held there were no exceptional circumstances
justifying the grant of reservation to Maratha community in excess of
50 percent ceiling limit as laid down in the Indra Sawhney judgment
34 Vikas Gawali Vs State of The Supreme Court also laid down a triple test to be complied with
Maharashtra 2021 by the State before reserving seats in local bodies for OBCs.

35 Rambabu Singh Thakur Vs The Court gave various directions to political parties both at the
Sunil Arora Central and State level to mandatorily upload on their websites the
detailed information of candidates along with pending criminal cases
against them, state reasons for selecting candidates and also why
individuals who did not have any criminal antecedents could not be
selected.
36 Secretary Ministry of Defence The Court ruled that Short Service Commissioned (SSC) women
Vs Babita Puniya officers in the Indian Army are entitled to permanent commission
(PC) and that they have to be considered for PC irrespective of their
having exceeded fourteen years of service. Denying them PC would
be a violation of right to equality under Article 14, the Court held.

37 Amit Sahni v. Commissioner The Court made several observations on the permissible limits of the
of Police right to protest. Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but
demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places
alone, the Court said. The mode and manner of dissent against
colonial rule cannot be equated with dissent in a self-ruled
democracy, the Court added.

38 Amish Devgan v. Union of Merely referring to feelings of one community or group without any
India reference to any other community or group does not attract ‘hate
speech’, the Court said. Among other observations, the Court also
observed that freedom and rights cannot extend to create public
disorder or incite violence.

IAS Mentorship www.iasmentorship.com Telegram WhatsApp Call 8090528260