JUDICIARY, IMPORTANT CASES

S.No CASE NAME ISSUES OBSERVATION CONCLUSION

RAISED
1. GANGES To spread awareness i. More than 250 towns As a result of these
POLLUTION & controlling and cities have been directions millions of
CASE(PIL) pollution in the river ordered to put sewage people have been saved
Ganges. treatment plants. from the effects of air and
ii. Six hundred tanneries water pollution in Ganga
operating in highly basin covering 8 states in
congested residential India.
area of Kolkata have
been shifted out of the
City and relocated in a
planned Leather
Complex in the State of
West Bengal.
iii. A large number of
industries were closed
down by the Court and
were allowed to reopen
only after these
industries set up effluent
treatment plants and
controlled pollution.
2. VEHICULAR To recommend i.Orders for providing i.CNG outlets have been
POLLUTION CASE. measures for the Lead free petrol in the set up to provide CNG as
(SC, 1992, PIL) nationwide control country and for the use a clean fuel in Delhi and
of vehicular of natural gas and other other cities in India apart
pollution. mode of fuels for use in from Euro 2 norms.
the vehicles in India have ii. Delhi has become the
been passed and carried first city in the world to
out. have complete public
ii. Lead-free petrol had transportation running on
been introduced in the CNG.
four metropolitan cities
from April 1995.
iii. all new cars
registered from April
1995 onwards have been
fitted with catalytic
convertors
3. OLEUM GAS LEAK Hazardous industry i. The court held that the i. The principle of
CASE(PIL) in such proximity to carrying on of a Absolute Liability was
population could not hazardous industry in laid down.
be permitted. such proximity to ii. The Public Liability
population could not be Insurance Act was passed
permitted. iii.The policy for the
ii.The fertilizer factory abatement of Pollution
was relocated. Control was established.
 iv. The Environment
Protection Act was
passed
v. The Parliament added
an entirely new chapter to
the 1948 Factory Act.
4. THE FIRST JUDGES i.Current practice of i. Gave primacy to the Gave extensive power to
CASE(1981, the appointment of Executive and stated that the executives for the
APPOINTMENT OF the judges. the CJI’s next 12 years with regard
JUDGES) recommendation to the to the appointment of the
President can be refused Judges.
for cogent reasons.

5. SECOND JUDGES The vast powers i. Chief Justice of India i. The executive element
CASE, 1993 given to the has primacy in the matter in the appointment
executives with of appointments to the process was reduced to a
regard to the judicial Supreme Court and the minimum and political
appointments. High Courts. influence eliminated.
ii.An appointment ‘has to ii. The years that
be in conformity with the followed thus witnessed
final opinion of the Chief some confusion in the
Justice of India. process of appointment as
CJI made some unilateral
appointments.
iii.The role of the
President was reduced to
a mere approval.
6. 1998, ADVISORY Emphasized upon i. The process of CJI’s opinion is formed
DECISION, SC the role of appointment of Judges to by a body of senior
‘consultation’ IN the Supreme Court and Judges in judicial
judicial the High Courts is an appointments.
appointments. ‘integrated participatory
consultative process.
7. L Chandra Kumar case Jurisdiction limit of i.It was held that
[IT 1997 (3) SC 589] the tribunals. tribunals would not take
away the exclusive
jurisdiction of the courts.
ii. The Tribunal’s
decisions could be
scrutinised by the
Division bench of the
High Courts.
8. Shankari Prasad Case Parliament’s power SC contended that the
(1951) of amending. Parliament’s power of
amending the
Constitution u/s 368
included the power to
amend the Fundamental
Rights guaranteed in Part
III as well.
9. Golaknath case (1967) Parliament’s power i. Fundamental Rights i. This case conferred
of amending. are not amenable to the upon Fundamental Rights
Parliamentary restriction a ‘transcendental
as stated in Article 13 position’.
and that to amend the
Fundamental rights a
new Constituent
Assembly would be
required.
ii.
10. Kesavananda Bharati Amending power of The court held that the i. The parliament can
case (1973) the parliament. “basic structure of the only amend the
Constitution could not be constitution and not
abrogated even by a rewrite it.
constitutional ii.The power to amend is
amendment.” not a power to destroy.
iii. Judiciary can strike
down any amendment
passed by Parliament that
is in conflict with the
basic structure of the
Constitution.
11. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Election petition i.SC applied the theory i. 39th Amendment Act
Raj Narain case (1975) of basic structure and was passed by the
struck down Clause(4) of Parliament during the
Article 329-A, which Emergency Period.
was inserted by the 39th ii.
Amendment in 1975 on
the grounds that it was
beyond the Parliament’s
amending power as it
destroyed the
Constitution’s basic
features.
12. Minerva Mills case Basic Structure Judges ruled that a i.Judgement makes it
(1980) Doctrine. limited amending power clear that the
itself is a basic feature of Constitution, and not the
the Constitution Parliament is supreme.
ii. The Court added two
features to the list of
basic structure features.
They were: judicial
review and balance
between Fundamental
Rights and DPSP.
13. Indra Sawhney and SC examined the It upheld the Rule of Law was added
Union of India (1992) scope and extent of constitutional validity of to the list of Basic
Article 16(4), which 27% reservation for the Structure.
provides for the OBCs with certain
reservation of jobs conditions (like creamy
 in favour of layer exclusion, no
backward classes. reservation in promotion,
total reserved quota
should not exceed 50%,
etc.)
14. S.R. Bommai case The applicability of i.It was held that policies The SC tried to curb the
(1994) the doctrine of Basic of a state government blatant misuse of Article
Structure. directed against an 356 (regarding the
element of the basic imposition of President’s
structure of the Rule on states)
ii.Constitution would be
a valid ground for the
exercise of the central
power under Article 356.
15. HUSSAINARA KHATOON Article 21 was Landmark case emphasized i.Justice served for several
VS STATE OF BIHAR, First questioned. upon speedy trial and free under- trial prisoners and
PIL of India. legal aid for the effective who were released after
administration of justice this judgement.
and equality among the ii.Even the importance of
citizens. Public Interest Litigation
(PIL) was also highlighted
and got priority.
iii.Lawyers, scholars and
other legal authorities
expanded the scope of PIL.
16. Maneka Gandhi i.Are the provisions i. It was held that the scope i. Maneka Gandhi was
(Petitioners) V Union of under Articles 21, 14 of personal liberty given allowed ‘post decisional
India (Respondents) and 19 connected under Article 21 of the hearing’.
with each other or are Constitution of India is very ii. The Supreme Court
they mutually wide. stated that Article 14 (Right
exclusive? ii.The right to travel abroad to Equality), Article 19
ii. If the right to travel comes with the definition (Right to Freedom) and
outside the country is of personal liberty given Article 21 (Right to Life and
a part of Article 21 or under Article 21. Personal Liberty) form the
not? Golden Triangle of the
iii. Is a legislative law Constitution.
that snatches away iii. The doctrine of ‘post
the right to life decisional theory’ was
reasonable? evolved.
iv. In Article 21 “procedure
established by law” was
replaced with “due process
of law.”