be JUDICIAL COMPASS KEY CASES FOR CSE ASPIRANTS PAVAN PATEL xX @im_pavanpatel @ @pavanpateloraiContents LAK. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950.. 2 zs tate of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, 1951... oe : shankari Prasad v. Union of India, 1951... 4-Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, 1960 .. 5.L.C. Golaknath & Ors. v. State of Punjab, 1967 : ere : 5-Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973. ‘Lindira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 8:ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976).. 9.Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978... “Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, 1980., Shah Bano Begum v. Mohammed Ahmed Khan, 1985. oF 13 -M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986)... -Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) ‘ihoto Hollohan v, Zachillhu and Others (1992).. Bommai v. Union of India (1994).. ishakha & Others v. State of Rajasthan (1997).. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Others (1997). '8-M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) «. 18 1 19-IR Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2007 .. 20-Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, 2011. sss ae 22 21-Kamlesh Vaswani v. Union of India (2011) ~ Ake Pedophilia case (2011). 2013- Aka Note cast 22.People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of Indi 23:Lily Thomas V, Union of India (2013) . : on 25, 24-Mukesh & Ant v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors — Aka Nirbhaya cast 25-National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India, 2014 26-Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015... 27-Shayara Bano v. Union of India, 2017 ~ Aka Triple Talag case 28-Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, 2017 2 javtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, 2018. 31 30:Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of Kerala 2018 ~ Aka Sabrimala case.From Pavan Patel - If you're reading this, it means you received this PDF through Twitter. Creating a comprehensive, evolving, and well-rounded document like this requires significant effort, time, and investment. Your voluntary support would be greatly appreciated to help me continue this work. You can pay whatever amount you want hy scanning this QR to support | Thank you.AX. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 Context: This was one of the first significant cases heard by the Supreme Court of India after the Constitution came into force. The case involved A.K. Gopalan, a communist leader who was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. Key Issue: The primary question was whether the Preventive Detention Act violated fundamental rights, particularly Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liherty) and Article 19 (Protection af Certain Rights Regarding Freedom af Speech, etc.). Supreme Court Ruling: The Court upheld the constitutionality of the Preventive Detention Act and ruled that the procedure established by law, as mentioned in Article 21, did not have to be "just, fair, and reasonable.” It only had to follow the procedure laid down by the statute Doctrine of Procedural Due Process: The judgment rejecied the "procedural due process" doctrine, which would have required laws affecting life and personal liberty to be just, fair, and reasonable. Instead, the Court favored the "procedure established by law" doctrine, meaning that as long as the law is followed, the detention is valid Article 21 Interpretation: The Court took a narrow interpretation of Article 21, focusing on the "procedure established by law" rather than a broader interpretation that might include principles of natural justice. Relation between Fundamental Rights: The Court also ruled that the different fundamental tights in Part Il of the Constitution aie independent of each other and should not be read together. This meant that the laws infringing on one right (e.g., personal liberty) did not need to comply with protections under other rights (e.g., freedom of speech under Article 19). Criticism: The judgment was criticized for giving too much power fo the state and not adequately protecting individual liberties. The Court's refusal to consider the broader implications of Article 21 was seen as a limitation on the protection of fundamental rights, Subsequent Development: The narrow interpretation of Article 21 in the A.K. Gopalan case was eventually overturned in the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) case, where the Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21 to include "fair, just, and reasonable" law, thus embracing the concept of procedural due process, Significance: The A.K. Gopalan case is crucial for understanding the evolution of constitutional law in India, especially the interpretation of Article 21 and the relationship between different fundamental rights, It marked the beginning of judicial debates on personal liberty and state power, which continue to be relevant in Indian constitutional law.State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, 1951 ‘Context: The case challenged the constitutionality of the Madras University Act, Which provided for reservation of seats in educational institutions based on religion and caste, allegedly violating fundamental rights Key Issue: Whether the reservations made under the Madras University Act violated the fundamental right to equality and the right to equal access to public places under Article 15 of the Indian Constitution. Supreme Court Ruling: + The Supreme Court ruled that reservations based on religion and caste in educational institutions violated Article 15 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. + The Court held that while special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward, classes were permissible, they should not lead to discrimination against individuals from other communities. Impact on Fundamental Rights: + The judgment emphasized the importance of the right to equality and equal opportunity in education. + It reinforced that any reservation or special provision must not contravene the fundamental fights guaranteed under the Constitution. Legal and Constitutional Significance: + The case led to significant changes in the approach to reservations and affirmative action in India + Ithighlighted the need for balancing a‘firmative action with the fundamental right to equality, shaping future legislative and judicial approaches to reservations. Subsequent Developments: + The case prompted amendments to the Constitution, including the introduction of Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) through the First Amendment, allowing for special provisions for backward classcs while maintaining the core principle of cquality.Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, 1951 Context: This was the first ‘major case where the Supreme Court of India had to interpret the scope of the Parliament's power to amend — the TW Constitution, especially in relation to fundamental rights. Key Issue: The main question was whether the Parliament had the authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights enshrined 1n Part ILI of the Constitution. Amendment in Question: The case challenged the validity of the First Amendment to the Constitution (1951), which introduced changes to Articles 15, 19, and 31 to address issues like land reform and the right to property. Supreme Court Ruling: The Court upheld the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights, under Article 368. Article 13 Interpretation: The Court ruled that the word "law" in Article 13 (which prohibits laws that violate Fundamental Rights) did not include Constitutional Amendments. Therefore, amendments to the Constitution could not be challenged on the grounds that they violated Fundamental Rights, Implication: This judgment established that the Parliament had wide powers to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, as long as it followed the procedure outlined in Article 368. Significance: The Shaikari Plasad case set die precedent hat Cunstiwutional Amenduents could not be invalidated based on a violation of Fundamental Rights, reinforcing the supremacy of the Parliament in amending the Constitution. Later Developments: This judgment was later revisited in subsequent cases, especially in the Golaknath (1967) and Kesavananda Bharati (1973) cases, where the scope of the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution was re-examined and eventually limited, Legacy: The case is significant because it laid the foundation for the ongoing debate about the balance of power hetween the Parliament and the judiciary in India, especially concerning the amendment of Fundamental Rights.Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, 1960 Context: The case dealt with the constitutional issues surrounding the implementation of the Indo-Pakistan Agreement of 1958, which involved the transfer of the Berubari Union and the exchange of enclaves between India and Pakistan. Key Issue: The primary question was whether the government of India could cede territory (specifically, Berubari Union) to Pakistan by executive action alone, or if such a transfer required a constitutional amendment. Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the cession of any Indian territory to a forcign country could not be done solely through an cxccutive agreement. It required a constitutional amendment under Article 368, Article 3 Interpretation: The Court clarified that Article 3, which deals with the formation of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries, or names of existing states, did not empower the Parliament to cede Indian territory to a foreign country. Impact on Con: The ruling established that altering the territory of India especially when it involves ceding any part of itto another country, necessitates a constitutional amendment. This ensures that such decisions involve legislative scrutiny and approval. Indo-Pakistan Agreement: To give effect to the Indo-Pakistan Agreement, the Constitution (9th Amendment) Act, 1960, was passed, allowing the transfer of the Berubari Union to Pakistan. Significance: The Berubari Union case clarified the legal process required for the cession of territory and reinforced the principle that such significant decisions must involve constitutional amendments, thus safeguarding India's territorial integrity Legacy: The case is often cited as a precedent for matters involving the alteration of India’s borders and continues to he a key reference point in constitutional law discussions related to the transfer of territory.L.C. Golaknath & Ors. v. State of Punjab, 1967 Context: This landmark case dealt with the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, particularly the Fundamental Rights, and whether such amendments could be challenged if they violated these rights. Key Issue: The central question was whether the Parliament had the authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights, without limitations. Supreme Court Ruling: In a significant decision, the Supreme Court riled that the Parliament could not amend the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. Article 368 Interpretation: The Court held that Article 368, which outlines the amendment process, only provided the procedure for amendments but did not grant the Parliament unlimited power to amend the Constitution, especially Fundamental Rights. Prospective Overruling: The Court introduced the concept of "prospective overruling,” meaning the decision would apply only to future amendments and not affect amendments made before this judgment. Impact on Constitutional Law: This ruling placed a significant restriction on the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, asserting that Fundamental Rights were inviolable and could not be altered by legislative action, Conflict with Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh Cases: The Golaknath ruling directly conuadicted eatlier decisions i the Shankari Prasad (1951) aud Sajjan Singh (1965) cases, where the Supreme Court had upheld the Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights, Significance: The Golaknath case marked a pivotal moment in Indian constitutional law by emphasizing the supremacy of Fundamental Rights and limiting the Parliament's power to curtail them Aftermath: The judgment led to widespread debate and ultimately resulted in the 24th Amendment to the Constitution (1971), which restored the Parliament's power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. Legacy: The case is a crucial reference point in discussions on the balance of power between the judiciary and the legislature in India and the protection of Fundamental Rights. It set the stage for die Kesavananda Bhat case (1973), which inuoduced die “Basie Suucture doctrine,Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973 Context: This historic case arose from challenges to the Kerala government's land reforms, which affected the property of Kesavananda Bharati, a religious leader. The broader issue was the extent of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, Key Issue: The central question was whether Parliament had the unlimited power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, including: altering the Fundamental Rights Basic Structure Doctrine: The Supreme Court, ina landmark judgment, introduced the "Basic Structure” doctrine. The Court held that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter the "basic structure" or essential features of the Constitution. Examples of Basic Structure: Though not exhaustively defined; elements such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, the principle of separation of powers, judicial review, and the protection of Fundamental Rights were considered part of the basic structure. Majority Verdict: The judgment was delivered by a 13-judge bench, with a narrow 7:6 majority. The majority ruled that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, but the amendment should not damage or destroy its basic structure. Impact on Constitutional Law: This ruling established a critical check on Parliament's amending power, ensuring that the core values and principles of the Constitution cannot be compromised, even by a constitutional amendment. Overruling Golaknath Case: ‘The Kesavananda Bharati case partially overruled the Golaknath case. (1967) by affirming that Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights but introduced the limitation of the basic structure. Significance: The case is considered the bedrock of Indian constitutional law. It balanced the need for constitutional flexibility with the protection of the Constitution's essential principles. Judicial Supremacy: The Kesavananda Bharati case solidified the role of the judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution, with the power to review and invalidate constitutional amendments that violate the basic structure. Legacy he Basic Structure doctrine remains a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, influencing numerous judgments and safeguarding the Constitution's integrity against potential misuse of power by Parliament.Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 Context: This case arose from the challenge to Indira Gandhi's election victory in the 1971 Lok Sabha elections, where Raj Narain, her opponent, alleged electoral malpractices. Allahabad High Court Verdict: The Allahabad High Court found Indira Gandhi guilty of electoral malpractices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and declared her election void. This judgment led to widespread political turmoil and eventually the declaration of the Emergency in 1975. Key Issue: The case focused on the constitutional validity of the 39th Amendment, which was passed during the Emergency. The amendment placed the election of the Prime Minister, President, Vice President, and Speaker of Lok Sabha beyond the scope of judicial review. Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court struck down the 39th Amendment, holding that it violated the basic structure of the Constitution by undermining the principle of free and fair elections and judicial review. Basic Structure Doctrine Reaffirmed: The judgment reaffirmed the Basic Structure doctrine established in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), emphasizing that even a constitutional amendment cannotdestroy the basic features of the Constitution Impact on Electoral Law: The case reinforced the importance of judicial review in safeguarding the integrity of elections and ensuring that no individual is above the law. Significance: The case is a landmark in Indian constitutional history as it asserted the power of the judiciary to review and strike down constitutional amendments that violate the basic structure, particularly concerning democratic processes. Aftermath: The ruling had significant political consequences, contributing to the end of the Emergency and the eventual defeat of Indira Gandhi in the 1977 general elections Legacy: The case remains a pivotal example of the judiciary's role in maintaining the checks and balances within India's democratic framework and upholding the rule of law against potential abuses of power by the executive.ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) - also known as the Habeas Corpus case Context: This landmark case was heard during the Emergency period (1975-1977) in India, when fundamental rights, including ADM JABALPUR the right to personal liberty, were suspended. Key Issue: The central question was whether a person’s right to approach the courts to a enforce the writ of habeas corpus was suspended during the Emergency when Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) was suspended. Ls Supreme Court Ruling: The majority judgment (4:1) held that during the Emergency, the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21) could be suspended, and no person could seek enforcement of these rights by approaching the courts. Majority Opinion: Justices A.N. Ray, M.H. Beg, Y.V. Chandfachud, and P.N. Bhagwati ruled in favor of the government, supporting the suspension of habeas corpus petitions during the Emergency. Dissenting Opinion: Justice H.R. Khanna dissented, arguing that the ri is paramount and should not be suspended even during an Emergency. a high point in the defense of civil liberties. ht to life and liberty dissent is considered Significance: The judgment was heavily criticized for undermining fundamental rights and is often cited as an example of judicial failure during the Emergency. Aftermath: The 44th Amendment to the Constitution (1978) was passed to ensure that the right to life and liberty under Article 21 cannot be suspended even during a state of Emergency. Legacy: The ADM Jabalpur case remains a crucial part of discussions on constitutional law, fundamental rights, and the balance of power between the state and individual rights in India. Itis often contrasted with later rulings that have expanded the scope of fundamental rights. Reversal: In 2017, in the K.S. Puttaswamy y. Union of India (Right to Privacy) case, the Supreme Court explicitly overruled the ADM Jabalpur judgment, affirming the primacy of fundamental rights,Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 WZ Ss - Context: The case arose when the Indian government impounded Maneka Gandhi's passport under the Passport Act of 1967, without providing her a reason or an opportunity to be heard. Key Issue: The primary question was whether the government's action violated Maneka Gandhi's Fundamental Rights, particularly under Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 19 (Right to Freedom), and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Indian Constitution Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad is part of the "personal liberty" guaranteed under Article 21. The Court further ruled that any law or action affecting personal liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable. Article 21 Interpretation: The case significantly expanded the scope of Article 21 by stating that "personal liberty” is not confined to mere physical liberty but includes a variety of rights It also established that any procedure established by law must meet the requirements of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness, Interrelationship of Fundamental Rights: The Court emphasized that Articles 14, 19, and 21 are interconnected and must be read together. This ruling overturned the earlier narrow interpretation of these rights given in the A K Gopalan case (1950) Due Process of Law: The judgment introduced the concept of "due process of law’ into Indian jurisprudence, which requires that laws affecting life and personal liberty must be just and fair, and not arbitrary. Impact on Constitutional Law: The Maneka Gandhi case is considered a watershed moment in Indian constitutional law, as it broadened the scope of Fundamental Rights and enhanced the protection of individual liberties against state actions. Significance: The case marked a shift towards a more liberal and expansive interpretation of Fundamental Rights, reinforcing the idea that all state actions must be subject to judicial scrutiny to prevent violations of individual freedoms. Legacy: The principles laid down in the Maneka Gandhi case continue to influence Indian constitutional law, particularly in cases related to personal liberty, due process, and the protection of human rightsMinerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, 1980 Context: The case arose fiom the challenge to the 42nd Amendment (1976), which attempted to reduce the power of the judiciary by expanding the powers of Parliament to amend the Constitution, Key Issue: The central question was whether the amendments made by the 42nd Amendment, particularly the inclusion af Articles 310 and 368(4) & (5), violated the "Basic Structure" of the Constitution, Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 introduced by the 42nd Amendment, which sought to bar judicial review. of constitutional amendments, The Court held that judicial review is a part of the basic structure and cannot be removed. Article 31C and the Basie Structure: The Court also partially invalidated Article 31C, which aimed to prioritize Directive Principles over Fundamental, Rights, by declaring that Fundamental Rights are part of the basic structure and cannot be overridden. Reaffirmation of Basic Structure Doctrine: The judgment reaffirmed the "Basic Structure” doctrine established in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). It emphasized that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is not absolute and is subject to limitations, Balance Between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles: The ruling struck a balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, stating nat while both are essential, neither can be prioritized at the cost of the other. Impact on Constitutional Amendments: The case significantly curtailed the Parliament's power to make amendments that could alter or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution gnificance: The Minerva Mills case is a landmark judgment that protected the judiciary’s role in ensuring that Parliament does not exceed its amending powers and that the Constitution's core principles remain intact. Legacy: The decision continues to be a comerstone of Indian constitutional law, safeguarding the integrity of the Constitution against potential legislative overreach and ensuring that the balance of power is maintained,Shah Bano Begum v. Mohammed Ahmed Khan, 1985 Context: The case involved Shah Bano Begum, a divorced Muslim woman, who sought maintenance from her former husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which provides for maintenance to a wife, children, and parents. Key Issue: The primary issue was whether a Muslim woman was entitled to maintenance after divorce under Section 125 of the CPC, despite the provisions of the Muslim Personal Law, which typically did not provide for maintenance beyond the iddat period (a waiting period after divorce), Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Shah Bano, stating that she was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. The Court held that the provision for maintenance under the CrPC applies to all individuals, including Muslims, regardless of personal laws. Article 15 and Gender Equality: The Court emphasized that Article 15 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, required that laws providing for maintenance must be applied equally to all individuals. Personal Laws and Constitutional Rights: ‘The ruling established that personal laws, including Muslim Personal Law, cannot,override fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, The decision undetscored that personal laws must conform to constitutional principles. Impact on Legal Framework: The decision led to significant debate and political controversy, prompting the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which aimed to limit the maintenance obligations of a Muslim husband to the iddat period only and also set up a framework for providing maintenance. Significance: The Shah Bano case is a landmark in the context of gender equality and the application of constitutional rights over personal laws. It reaffirmed the principle that personal laws must align with constitutional guarantees of equality and justice. Legacy: The case remains an important example of the interplay between personal laws and constitutional rights, highlighting the judiciary's role in ensuring that personal laws do not violate fundamental rights and gender equality principles.M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986) ae Tye ee SMH’ Context: The M.C. Mehta cases are a series FOUNDATION DAY| or Public interest Litigations (PIL) filed by environmental activist M.C. Mehta, focusing on environmental protection and enforcement of environmental laws in India, Key Issue: The cases addressed various environmental concems, including pollution in the Ganga River, industrial pollution, vehicular pollution in Delhi, and the degradation of the Taj Mahal due to air pollution Supreme Court Rulings: The Supreme Court delivered several landmark judgments through these cases, including: + Ganga Pollution Case: Ordered the closure of tanneries and industries polluting the Ganga River. + Vehicular Pollution Case: Mandated the use of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) for public transport in Delhi to reduce air pollution + Taj Mahal Case: Directed the relocation of industries around the Taj Mahal and the establishment of the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) to protect the monument from pollution, Principles Established: + Polluter Pays Principle: Established the idea that those who cause environmental damage should be responsible for paying for the damage and its remediation. + Precautionary Principle: Advocateé for preventive measures in environmental protection, even if scientific certainty about the risk is lacking. + Absolute Liability: Introduced the concept of absolute liability for industries engaged in hazardous activities, making them fully responsible for any harm caused. Impact on Environmental Law: These cases significantly strengthened environmental jurisprudence in India, leading to stricter enforcement of environmental laws and the development of new legal principles for environmental protection. Significance: The M.C. Mehta cases are instrumental in shaping India's environmental policy, ensuring the judiciary's active tole in environmental governance, and promoting sustainable development. Legacy: These cases continue to influence environmental law and policy, ensuring the protection of natural resources and public health through judicial interventionIndra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) Context: The case arose after the implementation of the Mandal Commission Report (1980), which recommended 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in government jobs and educational institutions. Key Issue: The main question was whether the reservation policy for OBCs violated the principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution, specifically under Articles 14, 15, and 16 Supreme Court Ruling: + Validity of OBC Reservation: The Court upheld the 27% reservation for OBCs but imposed several conditions, ensuring that the reservation does not exceed 50% of the total seats. + Exclusion of Creamy Layer: The Court introduced the concept of the "creamy layer,” which excluded the economically adyanced sections of OBCs from availing the benefits It set a maximum limit of 50% on reservations in government jobs and educational institutions, except in extraordinary circumstances Article 16(4): The Court interpreted Article 16(4) to mean that the state could make reservations for backward classes, but these reservations should be based on social and educational backwardness, not just economic criteria, Non-Retroactive Reservations: The judgment retrospectively: ied that reservations should not be applied Impact on Indian Society: © Social Justice: The judgment reinforced the principle of social justice by allowing affirmative action for socially and educationally backward classes while maintaining a balance with the right to equality. + Policy Implications: The ruling influenced future reservation policies and ensured the implementation of reservations with safeguards to prevent misuse. Significance: The Indra Sawhney case is a landmark judgment that shaped India's reservation policy, balancing affirmative action with meritocracy and preventing the concentration of benefits within the upper sections of backward classes. Legacy: The case remains a critical reference for debates on reservations and social justice, guiding the formulation and implementation of reservation policies in India.Kihoto Holohan v. Zachillhu and Others (1992) Context: The case involved the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the anti-defection law. The law was introduced to curb political defections by disqualifying defectors from holding public office, Key Issue: The primary issue was whether the Tenth Schedule, particularly the provision granting the Speaker of the House the power to decide on disqualification of members, violated the principles of separation of powers and judicial review Supreme Court Ruling: + Validity of Tenth Schedule: The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule, affirming that the anti-defection law was necessary to curb the menace of political defections and maintain the integrity of the democratic process. + Role of the Speaker: The Court ruled that the Speaker’s decision regarding disqualification under the Tenth Schedale is subject to judicial review. However, the Speaker's authority to decide on disqualification was deemed valid. + Judicial Review: The Court clatified that while the Speaker’s decision can be reviewed by the judiciary, it can only be done after the Speaker has made the decision. This ensures that the Speaker's authority is respected, but with a check on potential misuse. Impact on Anti-Defection Law: The judgment strengthened the anti-defection law by balancing the power of the Speaker with the possibility of judicial oversight, thus preventing arbitrary decisions. Significance: he Kihoto Hollohan case 1s crucial as it provided clarity on the functioning of the anti-defection law and established the balance between legislative privileges and judicial review, ensuring that the law serves its purpose without compromising democratic principles. Legacy: The decision continues to play a significant role in Indian polities, especially in maintaining stability within elected governments by preventing unethical political defections.S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) Context: The case arose after the dismissal of the $.R. Bommai government in Karnataka by the Governor, who cited a loss of majority as the reason. This dismissal led to a broader examination of the misuse of Article 356 (President's Rule) Key Issue: The central question was whether the imposition of President's Rule — Mr. Bommai under Article 356 was constitutional and if CM;Kamataka ge |. Governor the judicial review could be applied to decisions made under this Article. Supreme Court Rul + Judicial Review: The Court held that the President's proclamation under Article 356 is subject to judicial review, meaning that the courts can review and potentially overtum. the decision + Floor Test Requirement: The judgment emphasized that the majority of'a government must be tested on the floor of the legislative assembly, not based on the Governor's subjective assessment. + Limits on Article 356: The Court limited the arbitrary use of Article 356, ruling that it could only be invoked in cases of genuine breakdown of constitutional machinery in the state. + Consequences of Misuse: If the court finds the imposition of President's Rule unconstitutional, it can reinstate the dismissed state government Federal Structure: The judgment forced the federal structure of the Indian Constitution, ensuring that state governments cannot be dismissed arbitrarily by the central government. Impact on Centre-State Relations: The ruling was a significant step in maintaining the balance of power between the Centre and the states, preventing the central government from misusing its power to dismiss state governments. Significance: The S.R. Bommai case is considered a landmark in protecting democratic principles in India, particularly in safeguarding against the misuse of Article 356 and ensuring, that federalism is respected. Legacy: The judgment is frequently cited as a precedent in matters related to the imposition of President's Rule and continues to be a critical safeguard in the preservation of democracy and federalism in India,Vishakha & Others v. State of Rajasthan (1997) Context: The case was filed afier the brutal gang rape of a social worker in Rajasthan, which highlighted the lack of legal protection against scxual harassment at the workplace. Key Issue: The primary issue was the absence of laws to address and prevent sexual harassment of women at the workplace, leading to the need for judicial intervention to protect women's rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution Supreme Court Ruling: + Guidelines Established: | The 1es, known as the Vishakha Guidelines, to address sexual harassment at the workplace. These guidelines were to be treated as law until appropriate legislation was enacted + Definition of Sexual Harassment: The Court provided a clear definition of sexual harassment, covering both physical and verbal conduct that is unwelcome and inappropriate. + Employer's Responsibility: The judgment imposed a duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment, provide a safe working environment, and establish grievance redressal mechanisms, such as internal complaints committees Basis in International Law: The Court referred to international conventions like the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) to strengthen its judgment and to fill the legislative vacuum in India Impact on Women's Rights: The Vishakha case was a landmark in recognizing the right to a safe and secure workplace for women, directly contributing to the empowerment of women in India, Legislative Outcome: The Vishakha Guidelines laid the foundation for the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act in 2013. Significance: This case is considered a milestone in the fight against gender discrimination in India, ensuring that women's rights are protected in professional spaces and reinforcing the constitutional principles of equality and dignity Legacy: The Vishakha Guidelines remain a crucial reference in matters related to workplace harassment, influencing both legal and organizational practices across the country.L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Others (1997) Context: The case arose from a challenge to the constitutional validity of Articles 323A and 323B, which established Administrative Tribunals and granted them — exclusive jurisdiction over certain matters, effectively excluding the jurisdiction of High Courts Key Issue: The central question was whether the exclusion af the jurisdiction of High Conrts and the Supreme Court (except in appeals) hy Articles 323A and 323B was constitutionally valid. Supreme Court Rul + Tribunals' Cons : The Court upheld the. establishment of Administrative Tribunals under Articles 323A and 323B but struck down the provisions that excluded the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226/227 and the Supreme Court under Article 32. + Judicial Review: The Court reaffirmed that judicial review by High Courts and the Supreme Court is a part of the basic struciure of the Constitution and cannot be excluded. Subordinate Role of Tribunals: The Court held that tribunals are subordinate to the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Tribunals can act as the first forum for dispute resolution, but their decisions are subject to review by the High Courts, Impact on Administrative Tribunals: The judgment restored the power of judicial review to the High Courts, ensuring that tribunals operate within the framework of the Constitution and do not become a parallel judicial system. Basic Structure Doctrine: The case reinforced the basic structure doctrine, particularly the essential role of judicial review as an inalienable feature of the Constitution. Significance: The L: Chandra Kumar case is a landmark judgment that clarified the relationship between tribunals and the higher judiciary, ensuring that tribunals remain accountable and that the Constitution’s basic structure is preserved. Legacy: This decision continues to influence the functioning of tribunals in India, maintaining the balance between efficiency in administrative justice and the supremacy of constitutional courtsM. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) M. NAGRAS vs UNION OF INDI Context: The case dealt with the constitutionality of the reservations provided to Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) under the Constitution (Seventy-Seventh Amendment) Act, 1995, which introduced changes to Article 16(4A) and Article 335 of the Constitution. Key Issue: The central issue was whether the amendments to Articles 16(4A) and 335, which allowed reservations in promotions for SCs and STs, violated the fundamental rights of individuals or discriminated against other groups. Supreme Court Ruling: Three Constitutional requirements ~ + Constitutionality of Reservations: The Court upheld the constitutionality of reservations in promotions for SCs and STs but clarified that such reservations must not undermine the efficiency of administration, + Backwardness and Inadequacy of Representation: The Court ruled that before providing reservations, the State must show that SCs and STs are inadequately represented in the services and that they are backward compared to other groups. + Efficiency and Merit: The Court emphasized that reservations should not affect the efficiency of administration, and the State must ensure that the reservations do not adversely impact the merit of public services. Requirement for Data: The judgment stared that the Stare must collect empirical data 10 demonstrate the backwardness of SCs and STs and the inadequacy of their representation in public services. Impact on Reservations Policy: The ruling established that while reservations are constitutional, they must be implemented in a way that balances the need for representation with the maintenance of administrative efficiency. Significance: The M. Nagaraj case is significant as it set guidelines for implementing reservations in promotions, ensuring that such measures are based on concrete evidence and do not compromise administrative effectiveness, Legacy: The decision remains a crucial reference for understanding the limits and conditions under which reservations can be provided, maintaining a balance between affirmative action and the need for administrative efficiency.IR Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2007 Context: The case challenged the immunity of laws placed under the Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution from judicial review. These laws were initially protected from being challenged on the grounds of violating fundamental rights Key Issue: The main issue was whether laws under the Ninth Schedule could escape judicial scrutiny, particularly concerning their compliance with the Constitution's "basic structure." Supreme Court Rulin; + Judicial Review Affirmed: The Supreme Court held that even laws under the Ninth Schedule are subject to judicial review if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution. + Basic Structure Doctrine: The ruling reinforced that the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be altered or destrayed by any law or constitutional amendment Impact on the Ninth Schedule: The decision clarified that the Ninth Schedule does not provide absolute protection to laws. Such laws can be reviewed by courts if they ¢ upon the basic structure of the Constitution, Significance: The IR Coelho case is a landmark judgment that emphasized the importance of judicial review in preserving the integrity of the Constitution and its fundamental principles. Legacy: The case reinforced the power of the judiciary to ensure that no law or amendment can undermine the core values of the Constitution, even if it is placed in the Ninth Schedule.Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, 2011 ‘Cert han enave main marneK (Pla ett has pat nahin ant” = tas ats Context: Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse, was in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) for 37 years after a brutal assault. A petition was filed by journalist Pinki Virani in the Supreme Court seeking permission for euthanasia (mercy killing). Key Issue: The central issue was whether passive euthanasia should be permitted in India for patients in a persistent vegetative state Supreme Court Ruling: + Passive Euthanasia Allowed: The Court permitted passive euthanasia under strict guidelines. This includes withdrawing life support with the approval of the High Court after receiving a request from close family members or next of kin. + Active Euthanasia Not Permitted: The Court distinguished between passive euthanasia (withdrawal of treatment) and active euthanasia (administering a lethal substance), allowing only the former. Guidelines Establiched: The Conet laid down specifie guidelines for passive euthanasia which include obtaining approval from a medical board, consent from close relatives, and finally, approval from the High Court. Impact: The case was significant in setting a legal precedent for passive euthanasia in India, It also initiated a broader debate on the right to die with dignity, Significance: The judgment balanced the sanctity of life with the need to prevent unnecessary suffering, and it underscored the importance of the right to die with dignity within the framework of Article 21 of the Constitution, Legacy: The Aruna Shanbaug case laid the groundwork for the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in the Common Cause case, which recognized the right to die with dignity as part of the right to life