S.R. Bommai v.

Union of India (AIR 1994 SC 1918)

● Summary: The Supreme Court asserted that secularism is a fundamental aspect of the
Indian Constitution. It recognized secularism as having a positive role, integral to
maintaining the basic structure of the Constitution.

In Re Berubari Union (AIR 1960 SC 845)

● Summary: The Supreme Court determined that the Preamble is not an enforceable part
of the Constitution. This judgment clarified the Preamble’s role as an introductory
statement rather than an enforceable provision.

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 1125)

● Summary: The Supreme Court upheld that the judiciary's power of judicial review under
Articles 32 and 226 is a part of the Constitution’s basic structure, and this power cannot
be removed through constitutional amendments under Article 368.

Kihota Hollohan v. Zachillhu (AIR 1993 SC 412)

● Summary: The Supreme Court ruled that the 10th Schedule of the Constitution, which
deals with the anti-defection law, remains constitutional even after excluding Paragraph
7. The remaining provisions of the 10th Schedule are self-sufficient and operational.

Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 477)

● Summary: The Supreme Court extensively examined Article 16(4), ruling that:
1. Reservation for backward classes can be based on caste, but caste alone cannot
be the exclusive criterion.
2. Economic status alone does not qualify for reservations under Article 16(4).
3. Article 16(4) is not an exception but a specific provision for classification within
Article 16(1). The decision in Balaji v. State of Mysore that considered Article
16(4) an exception was overruled.
People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 1473)

● Summary: Also known as the Asiad Project Worker case, the Supreme Court held that
Article 17, which prohibits untouchability, applies even to private individuals, reinforcing
the right against social discrimination.

Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India (AIR 1996 SC 770)

● Summary: The Supreme Court decided that National Awards do not qualify as titles
under Article 18. It also directed that National Awards should not be used as suffixes or
prefixes, thus maintaining the egalitarian values of the Constitution.

Selvi v. State of Karnataka (AIR 2010 SC 1974)

● Summary: The Supreme Court ruled that lie detector tests can only be administered
with the consent of the accused. If conducted without consent, such tests would violate
Article 20(3), which protects individuals against self-incrimination.

Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (AIR 1989 SC 2039)

● Right to Health: The Supreme Court held that all doctors, whether in private or
government service, must provide immediate medical aid to injured persons without
waiting for legal formalities. This case underscored the importance of the right to health
and timely medical assistance.

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (AIR 1986 SC 180)

● Right to Livelihood: The Supreme Court ruled that the right to life includes the right to
livelihood, emphasizing that depriving individuals of their means of livelihood would be
equivalent to denying them their right to life.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597)

● Personal Liberty: The Court held that personal liberty under Article 21 is broad and
inclusive, covering various rights. The legal procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable,
and should follow principles of natural justice.

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 4161)

● Right to Privacy: The Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental
right under Article 21, overturning previous rulings that denied privacy as a fundamental
right.

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (2019) 1 SCC 1

● Aadhaar Case: The Court upheld the constitutional validity of Aadhaar, although it read
down certain provisions to prevent misuse, affirming the importance of privacy and data
protection.

Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39

● Decriminalization of Adultery: The Court struck down Section 497 of the IPC, which
criminalized adultery, as unconstitutional. It held that the law was discriminatory against
women, violating their right to dignity under Article 21.

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 345

● Decriminalization of Homosexuality: The Supreme Court declared Section 377 of the

Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 141

● Compensation for Violation of Article 21: The Court acknowledged the power of
courts to award compensation for violations of Article 21, thereby emphasizing the
enforceability of fundamental rights.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1997 SC 3011)

● Prevention of Sexual Harassment: The Court established guidelines (known as the

National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India (AIR 2014 SC 1863)

● Self-determination of Gender: The Court affirmed the right of individuals to

Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (AIR 2011 SC 3361)

● Child Rights: The Supreme Court held that the abuse of children in circuses, including
physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, violates Article 21, which provides for child rights
and protection.

M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1978 SC 1548)

● Right to Free Legal Aid: The Court ruled that the right to free legal aid is intrinsic to the
right to life and liberty, ensuring that every individual has access to justice.

Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (AIR 1979 SC 1360)

● Right to Speedy Trial: The Supreme Court held that the right to a speedy trial is a
fundamental right under Article 21, aiming to prevent prolonged legal delays and
ensuring timely justice.

Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) 3 SCC 666

● Right to Education: The Supreme Court ruled that the right to education is a
fundamental right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution, and it is available at all
levels.
Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) 1 SCC 645

● Right to Free Education for Children: The Supreme Court further clarified that the right
to education is a fundamental right under Article 21. However, the right to free education
is only available to children until the age of 14. After this age, the state's obligation to
provide education is dependent on its economic capacity and development.

Environmental Cases

● M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Shriram Food & Fertilizer case) (1986) 2 SCC 176
● Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212
● Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 650
● In these cases, the Supreme Court emphasized the right to a clean and healthy
environment as an extension of Article 21. The Court issued various directives aimed at
pollution control and environmental conservation.

Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 2006 SC 3385)

● Judicial Review of Pardoning Powers: The Supreme Court held that the President’s
power under Article 72 and the Governor’s power under Article 161 to grant pardons are
subject to judicial review. These powers cannot be exercised based on caste or political
considerations.

Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 1

● Delay in Mercy Petitions: The Supreme Court held that prolonged delay in the disposal
of mercy petitions for death row convicts can amount to torture, thereby justifying the
commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment. This case emphasized humane
considerations in the justice system.

S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 149)

● 1st Judges Case: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of executive supremacy in the
appointment of judges, based on the opinion in the Sankalchand case. This case is also
known as the "Judges Transfer Case."
S.C. Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 441

● 2nd Judges Case: The Supreme Court overturned the decision in S.P. Gupta. It
established that in matters of judicial appointments to the Supreme Court and High
Courts, the Chief Justice of India should have primacy.

Re Presidential Reference (AIR 1999 SC 1)

● 3rd Judges Case: The Supreme Court clarified the consultation process for judicial
appointments, stating that the Chief Justice of India must consult a plurality of judges.
This case reinforced the principles laid out in the 2nd Judges Case.

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) AIR SCW 5457

● NJAC Case: The Supreme Court declared the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the
National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act of 2014 unconstitutional. This
reinstated the collegium system for judicial appointments.

Golaknath v. State of Punjab (AIR 1967 SC 1643)

● The Supreme Court prospectively overruled its earlier decisions in Shankari Prasad and
Sajjan Singh, ruling that Parliament has no power to amend Part III of the Constitution to
take away or abridge Fundamental Rights. This landmark judgment protected the
integrity of Fundamental Rights against parliamentary amendments.