JUDGEMENTS FOR MAINS

Shankari Prasad Case (1951): ( Amendability of Fundamental Rights)

In this case, the validity of the first constitutional amendment which added Articles
31- A and 31-B of the Constitution was challenged. For the first time, the question
of whether fundamental rights can be amended under Article 368 came for
consideration by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court rejected the contention that in so far as the First Amendment
took away or abridged the fundamental rights conferred by Part III it should not
be upheld in the light of the provisions of article 13(2).
Therefore "law" in article 13 must be taken to mean rules or regulations made in
the exercise of ordinary legislative power and not amendments to the Constitution
made in the exercise of constituent power. Article 13 (2) did not affect
amendments made under article 368.
Berubari Union case (1960): (Parliament's power to make
amendments under Article 3 and Article 368)
In this case, conflict arose regarding the power of the parliament to transfer the
territory of Berubari to Pakistan. The detailed examination of article 3 was done
by the Supreme Court on a reference made by the President in 1960. The Supreme
Court held that the Parliament of India is not competent to make a law under
article 3 for the implementation of the Nehru-Noon Agreement.
This was followed by an amendment of the constitution by parliament using the
power of Article 368. The result was the Constitution (9th Amendment) Act 1960.
The Supreme Court gave a very narrow judgment that the preamble was not an
integral part of the constitution and therefore it is not enforceable in a court of law.
I.C. Golaknath case (1967): (Validity of the First and Seventeenth
Amendments and described the scope of Article 13)
The validity of the First and Seventeenth Amendments to the Constitution in so far
as they affect fundamental rights was again challenged in this case. The fourth
amendment was also challenged.
The Supreme Court adopted a doctrine of prospective overruling under which the
three constitutional amendments concerned would continue to be valid.
Moreover, the Supreme Court held that article 368 dealt only with the procedure
for amendment, and an amendment to the Constitution is made as part of the
normal legislative process. It is, therefore, a "law" for the purpose of article 13 (2).

1
To get over the decision of the Supreme Court in Golaknath’s case the Constitution
24th Amendment Act was passed in 1971 in which changes to articles 13 and 368
were made.
Kesvananda Bharti case (1973): (Defined the Basic Structure of the
Indian Constitution)
The Supreme Court reviewed the decision in Golaknath v. The state of Punjab and
considered the validity of the 24th, 25th, 26th, and 29th Amendments. The Court
held that although no part of the constitution, including fundamental rights, was
beyond the amending power of Parliament, the "basic structure of the Constitution
could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment.
It is a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India, and is the basis in Indian
law for the exercise of the Indian judicial of the power to judicially review, and
strike down amendments to the Constitution of India passed by the Indian
Parliament that conflict with the Constitution's basic structure.
The judgment also defined the extent to which the Indian Parliament could restrict
the right to property, in pursuit of land reform and the redistribution of large
landholdings to cultivators, overruling previous decisions that suggested that the
right to property could not be restricted.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narayan case (1975): (Disputes relating to
elections involving the Prime Minister of India)
The concept of basic structure was reaffirmed in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj
Narayan case. The Supreme Court applied the theory of basic structure and struck
down Clause (4) of article 329-A, which was inserted by the 39th Amendment in
1975 on the ground that it was beyond the amending power of the parliament as
it destroyed the basic feature of the constitution.
The amendment was made to the jurisdiction of all courts, including the Supreme
Court, over disputes relating to elections involving the Prime Minister of India.
Some basic features of the Constitution were listed in this case which are
considered unamendable such as sovereign democratic republic status, equality of
status and opportunity of an individual, secularism, and freedom of conscience and
religion and rule of law.
Menaka Gandhi case (1978): (Significant towards the transformation
of the judicial review on Article 21)
This case is a landmark judgment that played the most significant role in the
transformation of the judicial view on Article 21 of the Constitution of India so as
to imply many more fundamental rights from article 21. A writ petition was filed
by Maneka Gandhi under Article 32 of the Constitution in the Supreme Court.

2
The main issues of this case were whether the right to go abroad is a part of the
right to personal liberty under Article 21 and whether the Passport Act prescribes
a ‘procedure’ as required by Article 21 before depriving a person of the right
guaranteed under the said article.
A new doctrine of a post-decision theory was evolved and the most significant
interpretation was made on the interconnections between the three articles 14,
19, and 21.
It was finally held by the court that the right to travel and go outside the country
is included in the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21. The Court
ruled that the mere existence of an enabling law was not enough to restrain
personal liberty. Such a law must also be “just, fair and reasonable”.
Minerva mills case (1980): (Basic Structure which includes
Parliament's power to amend and the power of Judicial Review)
In this case, the validity of the 42nd amendment act was challenged on the ground
that they are violative of the ‘basic structure of the Constitution. The Supreme
Court struck down clauses (4) and (5) of article 368 and it was ruled by the court
that a limited amending power itself is a basic feature of the Constitution. The
court held that the amendment made to Article 31C is invalid on the ground that
they violate two basic features of the Constitution that are the limited nature of the
parliament of the power to amend and the power of judicial review.
The Judgement of the Supreme Court thus makes it clear that the Constitution is
the Supreme, not the Parliament. Parliament cannot have unlimited amending
power so as to damage or destroy the Constitution from which it owes its existence
and also derives its power.
Waman Rao Case (1981): (Validity of 9th Schedule and demarcating the
date of 24th April 1973)
Supreme Court in the Waman Rao case once again reiterated and applied the
doctrine of the basic features of the Constitution. In this case, the implications of
the basic structure doctrine for Article31-B were re-examined. The Court drew a
line of demarcation on April 24th, 1973 (the date of Kesavananda Bharti’s
decision) and held it should not be applied retrospectively to reopen the validity
of any amendment to the Constitution, which took place prior to 24-04-1973. It
meant all the amendments added to the Ninth Schedule before that date was valid.
All future amendments were held to be challengeable on the grounds that the Acts
and Regulations, which they inserted in the Ninth Schedule, damaged the basic
structure. The decision of this case is a landmark one in the constitutional
jurisprudence of India. This case has helped in determining a satisfactory method

3
of preserving the settled position and addressing grievances pertaining to the
violation of fundamental rights.
S. R. Bommai case (1994): (Misuse of Article 356 of the Constitution of
India)
S. R. Bommai case was a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India, where
the Court discussed provisions of Article 356 of the Constitution of India and
related issues. This case had a huge impact on Centre-State Relations. The
judgment attempted to curb blatant misuse of Article 356 of the Constitution of
India, which allowed the President's rule to be imposed on state governments.
Vishaka and State of Rajasthan (1997)
This case dealt with sexual harassment at the workplace. In the judgment, 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.
Samatha and State of Andhra Pradesh (1997)
This judgment nullified all mining leases granted by the Andhra Pradesh State
government in the Scheduled areas and asked it to stop all mining operations. It
declared that 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.
Lily Thomas v Union of India (2000)
Here, the SC held that the second marriage of a Hindu man without divorcing the
first wife, even if the man had converted to Islam, is void unless the first marriage
had been dissolved according to the Hindu Marriage Act.
I.R Coelho and State of Tamil Nadu 2007
This judgment held that if a law is included in the 9th Schedule of the Indian
Constitution, it can still be examined and confronted in court. The 9th Schedule of
the Indian Constitution contains a list of acts and laws which cannot be challenged
in a court of law. The Waman Rao ruling ensured that acts and laws mentioned in
the IX schedule till 24 April 1973, shall not be changed or challenged, but any
attempt to amend or add more acts to that schedule will suffer close inspection
and examination by the judiciary system.
Pedophilia case (2011)
The SC restored the conviction and sentence of 6-year (RI) rigorous imprisonment
imposed on 2 UK nationals who were acquitted by the Bombay High Court in a
4
paedophilia case. The court said that “the sexual abuse of children is one of the
most heinous crimes.”
ArunaShanbaug Case (2011)
The SC ruled that individuals had a right to die with dignity, allowing passive
euthanasia with guidelines. The need to reform India’s laws on euthanasia was
triggered by the tragic case of ArunaShanbaug who lay in a vegetative state (blind,
paralyzed, and deaf) for 42 years.
NOTA judgment (2013)
This judgment introduced the NOTA (None-Of-The-Above) option for Indian
voters.
Nirbhaya Case (2014)
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.
National Legal Services Authority and Union of India (2014)
This case resulted in the recognition of transgender persons as a third gender. The
SC also instructed the government to treat them as minorities and expand the
reservations in education, jobs, education, etc.
Triple Talaq Judgement (2016)
The SC outlawed the backward practice of instant ‘triple talaq’, which permitted
Muslim men to unilaterally end their marriages by uttering the word “talaq” three
times without making any provision for maintenance or alimony. Read about the
Triple Talaq Bill, 2019.
Right To Privacy (2017)
The SC declared the right to privacy as a Fundamental Right protected under the
Indian Constitution.
Repealing Section 377 (2018)
The SC ruled that Section 377 was unconstitutional “in so far as it criminalizes
consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex.”
L Chandra Kumar Case (1997)
The SC ruled that the power of judicial review vested in the Supreme Court and
High Courts by Articles 32 and 226 respectively is a part of the basic structure of
the Constitution.
5
Puttuswamy Case (2017)
This SC judgment protects individual rights against the invasion of one’s privacy.
Habeas Corpus Case (1976)
A much-criticized judgment of the SC, in which the majority ruling went against
individual freedom and seemed to favor the state. Justice Khanna’s dissent is also
well-known.
RomeshThapar Case (1950)
Here, the SC held that the freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of
propagation of ideas that can only be ensured by circulation.
R. Bommai v. The Union of India raised a serious question of law relating to the
Proclamation of President's Rule and dissolution of Legislative assemblies
according to Article 356 of the Constitution of India. This verdict stopped the
misuse of Article 356 (imposition of the president’s rule).
ANTI DEFECTION
• This was challenged in the Supreme Court, in the Kihoto Hollohan case [1992]
which ruled that Speakers, while deciding petitions under antidetection law,
exercised judicial powers akin to a tribunal, and hence their decisions would be
subject to the scrutiny of HCs and the SC.
• Further, the SC in the Karnataka rebel MLAs case had said, “Speaker’s political
affiliations cannot come in the way of adjudication (of disqualification petitions)”.
• Judicial Review: The SC Bench noted that as per the KihotoHollohan vs Zachillhu
and Others case (1992), the Speaker, while exercising the power to disqualify, acts
like a Tribunal, and hence, the validity of the orders is amenable to judicial review
ORDINANCE
• When ordinances are frequently issued and re-issued, it violates the spirit of the
Constitution and results in an ‘ordinance raj’. In D.C. Wadhwa vs State of Bihar
1987, the Supreme Court strongly condemned this practice and called it a
constitutional fraud.
• In 1970, in its judgment in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs Union of India, the apex
court has established that judicial intervention is absolutely necessary. So, when
the executive abuses its power to issue ordinances, the judiciary could intervene
RESERVATION
State of Madras vs Champakam Dorairajan (1951)

6
• The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Madras High Court, which struck
down a Government Order of 1927 regarding caste-based reservation in
government jobs and educational institutions.
This judgment also made the basis of adding Article 15(4) by the First
Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951.
Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992)
• The 9 Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court by 6:3 majority held that
the decision of the Union Government to reserve 27% Government jobs for
backward classes – with the elimination of Creamy Layers constitutionally valid.
• The reservation of seats shall only confine to initial appointments and not to
promotions, and the total reservations shall not exceed 50 percent.
M. Nagaraj vs. Union of India (2006)
• A five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court validated parliament’s
decision to extend reservations for SCs and STs to include promotions with three
conditions:
• State has to provide proof for the backwardness of the class benefitting from the
reservation.
• State has to collect quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of
that class in public employment.
• State has to show how reservations in promotions would further administrative
efficiency.
Jarnail Singh v. LachhmiNarain Gupta (2018)
• The Supreme Court held that the government need not collect quantifiable data
to demonstrate the backwardness of public employees belonging to the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (SC/STs) to provide reservations for them in
promotions.
THE SHAH BANO CASE
• The Shah Bano case was a milestone in the Muslim women’s search for justice
and the beginning of the political battle over personal law.
• A 60-year-old woman went to court asking for maintenance from her husband
who had divorced her. The court ruled in her favor. Shah Bano was entitled to
maintenance from her ex-husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure
Code

7
• However, the then government enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights
on Divorce) Act, 1986. It gave, Muslim woman the right to maintenance for the
period of iddat (about three months) after the divorce, and shifted the onus of
maintaining her to her relatives or the Wakf Board.
• The Act was seen as discriminatory as it denied divorced Muslim women the
right to basic maintenance which women of other faiths had recourse to under
secular law.
JUDGMENT ON STATUS OF TRANSGENDER
• In 2014, the Supreme Court in NALSA vs Union of India ruled that transgender
people should be recognized as a third gender and enjoy all fundamental rights,
while also being entitled to specific benefits in education and employment.
• In 2014, in the NALSA vs Union of India Case, Supreme Court recognized a
transgender person’s right to self-identification as male, female, or the third
gender.
• In 2018, in a historic decision upholding the privacy and non-discrimination of
LGBT persons, the Supreme Court struck down the colonial-era law that
criminalized consensual same-sex relations.
• Recently, Madras High Court, ruled that the term "bride" under the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 includes transwomen. Further, it directed the authorities to
register a marriage between a man and a transgender woman.
JUDGMENT ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSIONS
• Madras High Court judgment that the freedom of expression of artists and
authors should be protected and instead of asking them not to publish/display
their work by citing reasons of law and order, the state should focus on
maintaining law and order
ELECTOR REFORMS
1. PERSONS IN CUSTODY TO BE DEBARRED FROM CONTESTING
ELECTIONS
As per the 2004 judgment of the Patna High Court in Jan Chaukidari v Union of
India — upheld by the Supreme Court on 10 July 2013— all those in lawful police
or judicial custody, other than those held in preventive detention, will forfeit their
right to stand for election.
The judges relied on the Representation of the People Act (RPA), which says that
one of the qualifications for membership of Parliament or State legislature is that
the contestant must be an ‘elector’. Since Section 62(5) of the Act prevents those

8
in lawful custody from voting, the reasoning goes, that those in such custody are
not qualified for membership in legislative bodies.
Reasoning Against the Judgement
For a person to be qualified for the membership of legislature, the Representation
of People Act, 1951 states that one has to be an ‘elector’ as defined in Section 2(e).
Section 2(e) defines an elector as “a person whose name is entered in the electoral
roll of that constituency and who is not subject to any of the disqualifications
mentioned in section 16 of the RP Act, 1950.”
As the law mentions Section 16 of RPA, 1950 as the basis of disqualification from
being an elector, the SC relied on Section 62(5) which does not define ‘elector’ and
only debars a person in jail from voting, not from contesting an election. This
Section 62(5) distinguishes between an ‘elector’ and ‘voter’. The Supreme Court’s
judgment effectively amends the law passed by the Parliament.
2. MPS, MLAs TO BE DISQUALIFIED ON DATE OF CRIMINAL
CONVICTION
In Lily Thomas v. the Union of India, the Supreme Court declared Section 8 (4) of
the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (RPA) which allowed legislators a
three-month window to appeal against their conviction — effectively delaying
their disqualification until such appeals were exhausted — as unconstitutional.
Section 8 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 deals with disqualification on
conviction for certain offenses: A person convicted of any offense and sentenced
to imprisonment for varying terms under Sections 8 (1) (2) and (3) shall be
disqualified from the date of conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a
further period of six years since his release.
But Section 8 (4) of the RP Act gives protection to MPs and MLAs as they can
continue in office even after conviction if an appeal is filed within three months.
The Bench found it unconstitutional that convicted persons could be disqualified
from contesting elections but could continue to be Members of Parliament and
State Legislature once elected.
Reasoning Against the Judgment:
The constitution enlists the disqualification criteria in Article 102(1) including the
office of profit, unsound mind undischarged insolvency, and citizenship.
This article also empowers the Parliament to make law specifying any other
criterion for disqualification. In accordance with the constitutional mandate, the
Parliament enacted the RPA 1951, mentioning the disqualification criteria in
Section 8.

9
The Supreme Court has given two reasons for its verdict:
1. First, it held Section 8(4) to be in violation of Article 102, and its corresponding
provision for the States, Article 191, of the Constitution. A careful reading of article
102 clearly empowers the Parliament to define the criterion for disqualification by
enacting a law and none of the five clauses of Article 102(1) are attracted to
invalidate Section 8(4).
2. Second, the Supreme Court has held that Parliament had no legislative
competence to enact Section 8(4). This reasoning, too, is difficult to accept because
Entry 72 to List 1 of the 7th Schedule in the Constitution specifically allows
Parliament to legislate on elections to Parliament or the State legislatures. It is
well-settled that legislative entries in the Constitution are to be widely construed,
and in any case, Parliament has residual power to legislate under Entry 97 to List
1.
3. VOTER’S RIGHT TO CAST NEGATIVE VOTE
With a view to bringing about purity in elections, the Supreme Court on Friday
held that a voter could exercise the option of negative voting and reject all
candidates as unworthy of being elected.
The voter could press the ‘None of the above (NOTA) button in the electronic
voting machine. The court directed the Election Commission to provide the NOTA
button in the EVM.
The NOTA option would indeed compel political parties to nominate sound
candidates. The bench noted that giving the right to a voter not to vote for any
candidate while protecting his right to secrecy is extremely important in a
democracy.
Such an option gives the voter the right to express his disapproval of the kind of
candidates being put up by the parties. Gradually, there will be a systemic change
and the parties will be forced to accept the will of the people and field candidates
who are known for their integrity.
The right to cast a negative vote will foster the purity of the electoral process and
also fulfill one of its objectives, namely, wide participation of people. Not allowing
a person to cast a negative vote would defeat the very freedom of expression and
the right to liberty.
The Bench held that Election Conduct Rules 41(2) and (3) and 49-O of the Rules
were ultra vires Section 128 of the Representation of the People Act and Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution to the extent they violate the secrecy of voting.
4. THE VVPAT RULING

10
Supreme Court (SC), in the case of Subramanian Swamy vs Election Commission
of India (ECI), has held that VVPAT (Vote Verifiable Paper Audit Trial) is
“indispensable for free and fair elections”.
In accordance with that, the Supreme Court has directed the ECI to equip
Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) with VVPAT systems to “ensure accuracy of
the VVPAT system”. The Court directed the government to provide the key
financial assistance to the ECI to cause VVPAT systems to be deployed along with
EVMs.
Reiterating the stand of the Delhi High Court in an earlier judgment, the Apex Court
maintained that costs and finances cannot and should not be a deterrent to the
conduct of free and fair elections.
This ruling is obviously a victory for accountable voting in India, but it leaves a few
questions unanswered. While this was an exclusive prerogative of the Executive to
decide the manner in which fair and efficient elections can be held, in this case, the
court not only decided the mechanism but also asked the government to allocate
funds.
5. RULING ON ELECTION MANIFESTO
On a petition filed by an advocate S Subramaniam Balaji, challenging the state’s
decision to distribute freebies, the Supreme Court said that freebies promised by
political parties in their election manifestos shake the roots of free and fair polls,
and directed the Election Commission to frame guidelines for regulating contents
of manifestos.
It was stated in the petition that the freebies amount to bribery under Section
123(1). The Supreme Court rejected the contention that the promises made by a
political party are violative of Section 123(1) of the RPA. The provisions of the RPA
place no fetter on the power of political parties to make promises in the election
manifesto, the court held.
Secondly, the court held that the concept of state largesse is essentially linked to
the Directive Principles of State Policy. Whether the state should frame a scheme,
which directly gives benefits to improve the living standards or indirectly does so
by increasing the means of livelihood, is for the state to decide and the role of the
court is very limited in this regard.
It held that judicial interference was permissible when the action of the
government was unconstitutional and not when such action was not wise or when
the extent of expenditure was not for the good of the state.
The court, however, agreed with the appellant that the distribution of freebies of
any kind undoubtedly influenced all people. “Freebies shake the root of free and
fair elections to a large degree,” it said.
11
Considering that there was no enactment that directly governed the contents of
the election manifesto, the court directed the E.C. to frame guidelines for the same
in consultation with all the recognized political parties. The court also suggested
the enactment of a separate law for governing political parties.
6. STAY ON CASTE-BASED RALLIES IN UP
The Allahabad high court stayed caste-based rallies in Uttar Pradesh, a move that
will block off a key avenue that the major political parties use to expand their
support base, especially before elections.
The Lucknow bench of the high court sent a notice staying caste-based rallies to
four major political parties, the Union and the state governments, and the Election
Commission. The four parties are the Congress, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP),
the Samajwadi Party (SP) and the BahujanSamaj Party (BSP).
Holding political rallies by certain groups to address issues specific to them and
seeking to win their electoral support is a common practice in the country, most
prominently in Uttar Pradesh, where two of the major parties have specific caste
bases.
The petitioner said there had been a spurt of such rallies in the state, damaging
social unity and harmony, and that they were against the spirit of the Constitution.
There is no legal bar to a caste rally, as long as no law is violated. In fact, Article
19(1)(b) of the Constitution gives citizens a Fundamental right to assemble
peacefully. A political party can call a meeting of a caste, for example, Dalits to
discuss the problems facing that community, and there is no law barring such a
meeting. The aforementioned decisions of the Supreme Court and the Allahabad
High Court may be perceived as making or amending the law, a function that is in
the domain of the legislature.
7. RULING ON NOMINATION PAPERS
The Supreme Court on 13th Sep 2013 ruled that returning officers can reject the
nomination papers of a candidate for non-disclosure and suppression of
information, including that of assets and their criminal background.
The apex court said that voters have a fundamental right to know about their
candidates and leaving columns blank in the nomination paper amounts to a
violation of their right.
The court passed the judgment on a PIL filed in 2008 by NGO Resurgence India, a
civil rights group, which detected a trend among candidates of leaving blank
columns demanding critical information about them.

12
The Election Commission had supported the NGO’s plea that no column should be
allowed to be left blank which is tantamount to concealing information and not
filing the complete affidavit.
It had also taken a stand that the returning officer should be empowered to reject
the nomination papers of a candidate who provides incomplete information by
leaving some columns blank in the affidavit.
To summarize, The Representation of the People Act postulates the provisions for
the allocation of seats in, and the demarcation of constituencies for electoral
purposes, the House of the People and the Legislatures of States, the qualifications
of voters at such elections, the preparation of electoral rolls, the manner of filling
seats in the Council of States to be filled by representatives of Union territories and
matters connected therewith.
JESSICA LAL MURDER CASE - DECEMBER 2006
o Civil society makes big gains. Can be written in Role of Civil Society
• A model in New Delhi working as a bartender was shot dead and the prime
accused Manu Sharma, son of Congress MP Vinod Sharma who was initially
acquitted in February 2006 was later sentenced to life imprisonment in December
2006 by a fast track hearing by the Delhi High Court. On 19 April 2010, the
Supreme Court of India approved the sentence.
JUDGEMENT IN MOST OF THE ANSWERS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENT
• MC Mehta vs Union of India (Pollution in the Ganga) (1986) -This judgment
delivered on January 12, 1988, lashed out at civic authorities for allowing
untreated sewage from Kanpur’s tanneries to make its way into the Ganges.
It was the beginning of green litigation in India. In 1996, environmentalist M C
Mehta’s PIL, (M C Mehta vs Union of India on December 30, 1996) resulted in
stringent orders against Mathura refineries for polluting the ambient air around
the Taj Mahal.
• Yet another PIL by M C Mehta resulted in the CNG verdict (July 28, 1998) that
forced the vehicles in the capital to switch to a different fuel in order to keep a
check on vehicular pollution.
VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WITH REGARD TO THE RIGHT TO
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION (INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO
DISSENT)
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India Case (1978) the SC held that the freedom of
speech and expression has no geographical limitation and it carries with it the
right of a citizen to gather information and to exchange thoughts with others not
only in India but abroad also.
13
• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India Case, 2015: A landmark judgment in which
Section 66A of IT Act, was declared unconstitutional. The SC observed that when
it comes to democracy, liberty of thought and expression is a cardinal value that is
of paramount significance under our constitutional scheme.
JUDICIAL PROVISIONS WITH REGARD TO LIVING IN RELATIONSHIPS AND
LEGAL PROTECTION
• The Supreme Court has passed several landmark judgments on intimate
relationships.
• In Shafin Jahan v. Asokan (2018), it held that the right to choose one’s life partner
is an important facet of the right to life, and social approval of intimate personal
decisions should not be the basis for recognizing them.
• In Navtej Johar v. Union of India (2018), it read down Section 377 of the IPC
which criminalized consensual homosexual relationships.
• In Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamy, it was held that continuous
and prolonged cohabitation raises a presumption in favor of marriage and against
concubine.
• This is in accordance with Section 50 and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872.
JUDICIAL PROVISIONS WITH REGARD TO RTI
• In Central public information officer, Supreme Court of India vs Subhash Chandra
Agarwal case a five-judge Constitution Bench of Supreme Court declared that the
Office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a ‘public authority under the Right to
Information (RTI) Act.
JUDICIAL PROVISIONS WITH REGARD TO WOMEN’S ENTRY
• In the “Indian Young Lawyers Association & Others vs The State of Kerala &
Others” case, 2018, a five-judge bench delivered a landmark 4:1 ruling setting
aside the decades-old restrictions on the entry of women of reproductive age
inside Sabarimala Temple.

14