top of page

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Landmark Judgement)

Updated: May 4


THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Landmark Judgement)
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Landmark Judgement)

Landmark judgment on constitution:-



FEATURES OF CONSTITUTION


Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India 2023

The golden principle of fraternity which again is enshrined in the preamble is of the greatest importance and rightfully finds its place in the preamble as a constant reminder to all stakeholders that maintenance of harmony between different sections alone will lead to the imbibing of a true notion of nationhood bonding sections together for the greater good of the nation and finally, establish a sovereign democratic republic.


We must constantly remind ourselves that courts of law, as indeed every part of the 'State', must be guided by the sublime realisation, that Bharat is a secular nation committed to securing fundamental rights to all sections as contemplated in the Constitution. 


Ram Jawaya Kapoor v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549

Our Constitution has embraced the Parliamentary government system of England. The fundamental principle is that the President serves as the Constitutional Head of the executive, while the actual executive powers are vested in the Council of Ministers.


S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918

Secularism is an integral component of the Constitution's basic structure. The Supreme Court determined that secularism entails a positive connotation, emphasising the development of understanding and respect towards diverse religions.


Excel Wear v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 25

While the courts would prioritise nationalisation and state ownership, the principles of socialism should not be construed or applied in a manner that disregards the interests of private ownership entirely. Moreover, the Supreme Court emphasised that the primary aim of socialism is to ensure a decent standard of living and social security for the people.


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

The Supreme Court affirmed that the exclusion of judicial jurisdiction is unconstitutional. Judicial review stands as a cornerstone of the Constitution's basic structure and cannot be precluded.


S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918

In the majority opinion, the Supreme Court articulated that the Indian Constitution embodies federal principles.


Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549

The Indian Constitution is not strictly federal, and the States lack sovereignty. Political authority is divided between the Union and the States, with a stronger emphasis on Union supremacy.


State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1361

Although the Indian Union is federal in nature, the degree of federalism is significantly tempered by the imperative of national progress and development. The coordination of national, political, economic, social, intellectual, and spiritual aspects overrides strict federal considerations.

 
 

PREAMBLE


In Re Berubari Union case, AIR 1960 SC 845

The Supreme Court ruled that the Preamble is not considered a part of the Constitution.


Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461

The Supreme Court determined that the Preamble is indeed a vital component of the Constitution. It emphasised the significant importance of the Preamble and stressed that the Constitution should be construed and understood in alignment with its spirit.


Furthermore, the Court asserted that the Preamble could be amended without necessitating alterations to the basic structure of the Constitution.


Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845

The Supreme Court affirmed that the Preamble encapsulates the essence and fundamental features of the Constitution.


S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918

In line with the ruling in the Kesavananda Bharati case, the Supreme Court reiterated that the Preamble forms an integral part of the Constitution.


Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845

The Preamble epitomises the core principles, philosophy, ideals, and essence of the entire Constitution.


UNION & TERRITORY


In Re Berubari’s case, AIR 1960 SC 858 

The Supreme Court clarified that the authority of Parliament to reduce the area of a State does not extend to the cession of Indian territory to a foreign State. Such an agreement could only be given effect through a constitutional amendment under Article 368.


Babulal v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 51

If the State Legislature, to which the Bill has been referred, fails to convey its views within the specified or extended period, the Bill may still be introduced in Parliament, notwithstanding the absence of the State's input. However, if the State Legislature does express its views within the specified time, Parliament is not obligated to adopt or act upon them.


Maganbhai v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 783

The Supreme Court ruled that an agreement to refer a dispute to a tribunal does not constitute a cessation of territory, and therefore, a constitutional amendment is not required.

 
 

CITIZENSHIP


Sondur Gopal v. Sondur Rajini, AIR 2013 SC 2678

The Supreme Court ruled that in matters of domicile of choice, simply acquiring another domicile is insufficient. There must be a clear intention to abandon the domicile of origin.


Bhanwaru Khan v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 1614

The Supreme Court recognized that individuals who voluntarily migrated to Pakistan and became citizens there cannot reclaim Indian citizenship, even if they have been residing in India for an extended period and their names are on the voter list.


State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1963 SC 1811

The Supreme Court clarified that a company, as a juristic person, is not considered a citizen and thus cannot claim Fundamental Rights conferred upon citizens. Citizenship pertains to natural persons and not juristic entities like companies.


Tata Engineering v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 40

Shareholders argued that since they are citizens, the fundamental rights of shareholders should be protected by lifting the corporate veil.


The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that what cannot be achieved directly cannot be achieved indirectly. Therefore, a company does not inherit fundamental rights through its shareholders.


R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, (Bank Nationalisation case) AIR 1970 SC 564

The Supreme Court held that if a state action impairs the rights of both shareholders and the company, shareholders are entitled to protection under Article 19 of the Constitution. This case established a flexible approach to interpreting this aspect of constitutional law.


DOCTRINE OF ECLIPSE, SEVERABILITY, JUDICIAL REVIEW


Keshav Madhav Menon v. State of Bombay, AIR 1951 SC 128

The Supreme Court observed that pre-Constitutional laws apply to past acts, i.e., those occurring before the commencement of the Constitution.


Bhikaji v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1955 SC 781

This case introduced the doctrine of eclipse, stating that pre-Constitutional laws are overshadowed by fundamental rights and remain dormant.


Saghir Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 728

The Supreme Court clarified that the doctrine of eclipse applies only to pre-Constitutional laws, not post-Constitutional ones. Subsequent cases such as Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (1959) and Mahendra Lal Jain v. State of U.P. (1963) affirmed this view.


State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills, AIR 1974 SC 1300

The Supreme Court modified its earlier stance, stating that post-constitutional laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are not void ab initio for all purposes. The doctrine of eclipse also applies to post-constitutional laws.


R.M.D.C. v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628

In this case, the Supreme Court discussed the doctrine of severability, stating that if removing the invalid portion of a law leaves behind a complete code, there is no need to declare the entire Act void.


Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124

The Supreme Court held that if a law authorises restrictions on Fundamental Rights both within and beyond the limits provided by the Constitution, and it's not possible to separate the two, the entire law must be struck down.


Kihota Hollohan v. Zachillhu, AIR 1993 SC 412

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 10th Schedule minus paragraph 7, stating that the remaining provisions are workable and complete.


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

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the power of judicial review under Article 32 and 226 is a basic structure of the Constitution, and cannot be eliminated by statutory amendment under Article 368.

 
 

CONCEPT OF STATE 


Pushan Majumdar v. Union of India, 2023

Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science (IACS) answers to the description of “the State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, for it being financially, functionally and administratively under the control of the Government of India.


University of Madras v. Shanta Bai, AIR 1954 Mad. 67

The Madras High Court interpreted 'other authorities' using the principle of ejusdem generis, construing it to mean only authorities exercising governmental or sovereign functions.


Electricity Board, Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857

The Supreme Court rejected the interpretation in the University of Madras case, holding that 'other authorities' includes all authorities created by the Constitution or statute, irrespective of whether they perform governmental functions.


Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram, AIR 1975 SC 1331

The Supreme Court held that if the functions of a corporation are of public importance and closely related to government functions, it should be treated as an agency or instrumentality of the government, falling under the definition of 'State' within Part III of the Constitution.


Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628

Following the broader test from Sukhdev Singh's case, the Supreme Court laid down criteria to determine whether a body is an agency or instrumentality of the State, including State funding, State control, governmental function, transfer of government departments, and monopoly status.


Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487

The Supreme Court held that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1898, can be considered an agency or instrumentality of the State, and thus falls under the definition of 'State' in Article 12. The court emphasised the purpose for which the entity was established.


Naresh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1

The Supreme Court did not definitively state whether the judiciary falls under the definition of 'State.' Even if considered as such, the Court opined that writs under Article 32 cannot be issued against judicial orders of a High Court, as they do not violate fundamental rights.



FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS


Kaushal Kishor v. State of UP (2023)

A mere statement made by a minister inconsistent with the rights of a citizen of Part III of the Constitution may not constitute a violation of constitutional rights and become actionable as a constitutional tort.


But, if as a consequence of such a statement, any act of omission or commission is done by the officers resulting in harm or loss to a person or citizen, then the same may be actionable as a constitutional tort.


Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr RR Kishore (2023)

Once a law is declared unconstitutional, it becomes inoperative from its inception; void ab initio.


Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978)1 SCC 248

In its pronouncement, the Supreme Court cogitated on the sanctity of fundamental rights as emblematic of the core values cherished by the Indian populace. These rights, it underscored, safeguard the dignity of every individual, fostering an environment conducive to the fullest development of one's personality.


M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 71

The apex court, in its deliberations, affirmed the entrenched position of fundamental rights within the constitutional framework, endowing them with robust protection. It elucidated that individuals inherently possess certain basic human rights, transcending constitutional provisions, solely by virtue of their humanity.


Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637

It was emphasised that any measure impinging on fundamental rights without due justification would be deemed disproportionate. The doctrine of proportionality necessitates that restrictions be finely calibrated considering various factors such as the extent of territorial restriction, the exigency of the situation, duration of the measure, and the nature of the constraint.


Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha v. State of Gujarat, (2020) 10 SCC 459

The principle of proportionality mandates a thorough assessment of several conditions to ascertain the validity of State Action encroaching upon fundamental rights:


- The law impinging on fundamental rights must align with a legitimate State objective.


- There must exist a rational nexus between the measures adopted, the prevailing circumstances, and the intended goal.


- The measures must be indispensable for achieving the objective and should not encroach upon rights more than necessary.


- Restrictions must not only serve a legitimate purpose but also ensure adequate protection of rights.


- The State must institute adequate safeguards against the potential abuse of such interference.


K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1

Proportionality emerges as a pivotal facet in guarding against arbitrary State actions, ensuring that encroachments on rights are commensurate with the underlying purpose of the law.


Christian Medical College, Vellore Association v. Union of India, (2020) 8 SCC 705

In examining the reasonableness of a statutory provision one has to keep in mind the following factors:- 


  • The directive principles of State policy. 


  • Restrictions must not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature so as to go beyond the requirement of the general public


  • A just balance has to be struck between the restrictions imposed and the social control.


  • Prevailing social values and social needs which are intended to be satisfied by the restrictions.


  • There must be direct and proximate nexus or reasonable connection between the restrictions imposed and the object sought to be achieved. 


State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75

The Supreme Court, in its verdict, elucidated that the concept of 'equal protection of laws' is intrinsically linked to the notion of 'equality before law'. It remarked that a violation of equal protection of law invariably constitutes a violation of equality before the law.


Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narayan, AIR 1975 SC 2299

Asserting the sacrosanct nature of the Rule of Law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court underscored its status as a basic tenet of the constitutional framework, impervious to amendment.


R.K. Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 2138

The Supreme Court clarified that while Article 14 prohibits legislation that targets specific classes, it does not preclude reasonable classification based on objective criteria.


Chirinjit Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41

In its deliberations, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of laws even if they pertain to a solitary individual owing to exceptional circumstances. It emphasised the presumption of constitutionality and placed the burden on the challenger to demonstrate arbitrariness and unreasonableness.

 
 

E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555

Article 14 was interpreted by the Supreme Court as embodying a dual principle of equality: the traditional notion based on reasonable classification, and a newer concept aimed at curbing arbitrariness in state actions, ensuring fairness and equality of treatment.


State of Madras v. Champakam Dorarairajan, AIR 1951 SC 226

The Supreme Court invalidated a government order issued by the Madras government reserving seats in state medical and engineering colleges based on religion, race, and caste, deeming it unconstitutional due to its classification of students on the basis of caste and religion.


Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, (2008) 6 SCC1

In a challenge to the 93rd Constitutional Amendment, the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality while ruling that reservations cannot extend to candidates belonging to the 'creamy layer'.


Veena Vadini Teachers Training Institute v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023

domicile reservation can't be a wholesale reservation. Supreme Court asked MP Govt to review its 75% domicile quota in B.Ed seats-hough reservation in favour of residents is permissible, yet reservation to the extent of 75% of the total seats makes it a wholesale reservation, which has been held in Pradeep Jain to be unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.


Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 2114

The Supreme Court affirmed that the classification of unaided private educational institutions and aided private educational institutions does not contravene Article 14.


Balaji v. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 649

Addressing the criteria for determining backward classes, the Supreme Court clarified that caste alone cannot serve as the sole determinant; factors such as poverty and occupation are equally pertinent. However, if an entire caste is deemed socially and educationally backward, it may be included in the list of backward classes.


T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 355

In its ruling, the Supreme Court decreed that the state lacked the authority to enforce reservations of seats in admissions within privately operated educational institutions and higher educational establishments.


Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477

The Supreme Court conducted an exhaustive examination of the scope and implications of Article 16(4). The majority opinion of the court can be distilled as follows:


- Backward class identification under Article 16(4) may be based on caste, not solely on economic grounds, though caste alone cannot be the sole criterion.


- Economic criteria for reservation were nullified, citing the absence of mention in Article 16(4).


- Article 16(4) is not an exception to Article 16(1) but a form of classification; reservations can be made under Article 16(1), overturning the precedent set in Balaji v. State of Mysore.


- Backward classes in Article 16(4) differ from socially and educationally backward classes in Article 15(4), extending beyond the latter. Certain groups may qualify under Article 16(4) but not under Article 15(4), overturning Balaji’s decision on this matter.


- The exclusion of the 'creamy layer' from backward classes is mandated.


- Article 16(4) allows for the classification of backward classes into backward and more backward categories.


- Reservation should not surpass 50%, though exceptions may be made for individuals residing in remote areas. The court annulled the 'carry forward' rule from Devadasan v. Union of India (1964) but deemed it valid as long as it doesn't breach the 50% cap.


- Reservation in promotions under Article 16(4) was disallowed.


M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 71

Challenges to Clause (4-A) and Clause (4-B) of Article 16 were brought before the Supreme Court, which affirmed that these clauses derive from Article 16 without altering its fundamental structure.


B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India, (2019) 16 SCC 129

The concept of the 'creamy layer' was deemed inapplicable to the grant of consequential seniority.


State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, (2020) 8 SCC 1

The constitutional prerequisites of a 50% ceiling limit, the inclusion of the 'creamy layer', and the compelling reasons of backwardness, representation inadequacy, and overall administrative efficiency are deemed indispensable. These elements uphold the framework of equality of opportunity outlined in Article 16, without which it would be rendered ineffectual.


Telangana Judges Association v. Union of India, (2019) 18 SCC 769

The imposition of nativity requirements for public employment contravenes the fundamental right enshrined in Article 16(2), unless mandated by parliamentary legislation. Absent such legislation, residence cannot be imposed as an eligibility criterion for public employment.


People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473

Popularly known as the Asiad Project Worker's case, the Supreme Court affirmed that the right under Article 17 extends to actions by private individuals as well.


Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 770

The Supreme Court clarified that 'National Awards' do not qualify as 'titles' within the purview of Article 18. Furthermore, it ruled that these awards should not be utilised as prefixes or suffixes.


Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106

The Supreme Court safeguarded the rights of shareholders under Article 19(1)(a), affirming that these rights are preserved and exercised through newspapers owned and controlled by shareholders via corporate entities.


Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124

Highlighting the foundational importance of freedom of speech and press, the Supreme Court emphasised that democratic systems rely on free political discourse for effective governance and public education.


Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641

The Supreme Court delineated 'freedom of the press' as immunity from authority interference that might impede the content and circulation of newspapers.


Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106

The Supreme Court deemed any order stipulating a maximum number of pages for newspaper printing as a violation of freedom of speech and expression. Freedom of the press encompasses both quantitative and qualitative aspects, spanning circulation and content.


Express Newspapers v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 578

The Supreme Court held that the press is not immune from the laws of taxation and industrial application. 


R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632

The Supreme Court held that the government has no authority in law to impose a prior-restraint upon publication of defamatory material against its officials.



Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, AIR 1989 SC 1988

The Supreme Court affirmed that hawkers possess a fundamental right to conduct trade on the pavements of roads. However, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions outlined in Article 19(6).


Om Prakash v. State of U.P., AIR 2004 SC 1896

In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the ban on the sale of eggs within the municipal limits of Rikshikesh, deeming it valid due to the presence of reasonable restrictions. The reasonableness of such restrictions must be assessed considering the cultural and religious context of the town.


Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 324

Recognizing the right to protest as a fundamental right under the Constitution, the Supreme Court underscored its significance in a democracy, which thrives on the active involvement of an informed citizenry in governance.


State of Gujarat v. Mirzapu rMoti Qureshi Kasab Jamat, AIR 2006 SC 212

The Supreme Court upheld the ban on the slaughter of cows, calves, and other milch and draught cattle, ruling that it does not contravene Article 19(1)(g). This restriction was deemed reasonable due to the integral role of cows and their progeny in Indian agriculture and economy.


Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637

Constitutional protection extends to freedom of speech, expression, and the right to practise any profession or trade over the internet, as delineated in Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g).


The indefinite suspension of internet services is impermissible, and the repeated imposition of Section 144 of the CrPC constitutes an abuse of power. The government is mandated to publish all restriction orders and adhere to the principles of proportionality by adopting less restrictive measures.

 
 

Amit Sahini (Shaheen Bagh, In re) v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 439

The Supreme Court ruled that holding meetings to protest against specific legislation by obstructing public places or roads indefinitely without official authorization, causing inconvenience to commuters, is not a democratic method of expression. Administrations are instructed to take requisite actions to clear encroachments or obstructions created by such protesters.


Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha v. State of Gujarat, (2020) 10 SCC 459

The Supreme Court delineated the distinction between the concepts of security of the State and public order, emphasising the need for a delineating line between severe forms of public disorder posing a threat to state security and minor breaches of peace of local significance.


M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300

In its ruling, the Supreme Court outlined three essential elements of Article 20(3):


1. The individual must be accused of an offence.

2. This provision safeguards against compulsion to act as a witness.

3. Protection is extended against compulsion to provide evidence against oneself.


R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821

The Supreme Court clarified that an individual is considered accused when a formal accusation relating to the commission of an offence has been made, potentially leading to prosecution and conviction.


State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu, AIR 1961 SC 1808

The Supreme Court critiqued the broad interpretation of the phrase 'to be a witness' as provided in M.P. Sharma's case. It delineated that being a witness does not equate to providing evidence. Self-incrimination encompasses conveying information based on personal knowledge, excluding mechanical processes like producing documents or providing finger impressions or blood samples.


Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, AIR 1977 SC 1025

Affirming the protection of Article 20(3), the Supreme Court ruled that this safeguard applies from the stage of police interrogation onwards.


Selvi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974

The Supreme Court ruled that lie detector tests must only be administered with the consent of the accused. Without such consent, such tests would contravene Article 20(3).


A.K. Gopalan v. Union of India, AIR 1950 SC 27

The Supreme Court interpreted personal liberty in Article 21 as pertaining solely to the liberty of the physical body, excluding other interpretations. Furthermore, it delineated that the phrase "procedure established by law" does not imply due process of law; rather, it refers to state-made law without necessarily incorporating elements of natural justice.


Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597

The Supreme Court emphasised that the concept of personal liberty under Article 21 is expansive, encompassing a wide array of rights. The procedure established by law must be just, fair, and reasonable, with laws incorporating principles of natural justice.


Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court asserted that the right to life extends beyond mere survival and encompasses a dignified existence beyond mere animal existence.


Justice KS. Puttaswamy (Rtd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2017 SC 4161

The Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right protected under Article 21. It overturned previous rulings such as M.P. Sharma's case and Kharak Singh's case, which had denied the fundamental nature of the right to privacy.


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

Deeming the offence of adultery unconstitutional, the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. It deemed the provision violative of women’s right to dignity, thereby infringing upon Article 21.


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

In a significant move, the Supreme Court declared homosexual acts between consenting adults constitutional by striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized such acts.


Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180

The Supreme Court affirmed the right to livelihood as an integral component of the right to life under Article 21.


Chameli Singh v. State ofU.P., (1996) 2 SCC 549

Recognizing the importance of shelter, the Supreme Court held that the right to shelter is a fundamental right enshrined under Article 21.


Suchitra Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, AIR 2010 SC 235

The Supreme Court affirmed that the right to make reproductive choices, including the decision to bear a child or not, is encompassed within the ambit of Article 21.


Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2039

Establishing the right to health as a fundamental concern, the Supreme Court ruled that all doctors, irrespective of whether they practise privately or within the government sector, are duty-bound to provide immediate medical assistance to the injured without awaiting legal formalities.


Ramlila Maidan v. Home Secretary, Union of India, (2012) 5 SCC 1

Recognizing the biological necessity of sleep as an essential element of life's basic necessities, the Supreme Court affirmed that the right to sleep is indeed a fundamental right.


Jolly George Varghese v. State Bank of Cochin, AIR 1980 SC 470

Addressing the arrest and detention of an honest judgement debtor without willful failure to pay despite adequate means, the Supreme Court held such actions as violative of Article 21.


Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 648

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that the 'right to life' does not encompass the 'right to die'.


Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, MR 2011 SC 1290

In certain circumstances, the Supreme Court held that passive euthanasia is permissible.


National Legal Service Authority v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 1863

The Supreme Court recognized the right to self-determination of gender as an integral aspect of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21.


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

Asserting access to free legal aid as an essential component of the right to life and liberty, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to free legal aid is inherent in Article 21.


Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360

The Supreme Court established the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right implicit in Article 21.


Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579

The Supreme Court held that housing undertrials with convicts in prison facilities violates Article 21.


Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1535

In this case, the Supreme Court asserted that handcuffing is inherently inhuman, arbitrary, and unreasonable. Handcuffing should only be resorted to when there exists a clear and present danger of escape.


Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 SC 625

Addressing the issue of police brutality, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of 'third-degree' methods by law enforcement agencies violates the principles of Article 21, which safeguards the right to life and personal liberty.


Murli S. Deora v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 40

Recognizing the harmful effects of smoking on non-smokers, the Supreme Court directed the government to impose a ban on smoking in public places, underscoring public health concerns.


Attorney-General of India v. Lachma Devi, AIR 1986 SC 467

In a pivotal judgement, the Supreme Court deemed public hanging as violative of Article 21, emphasising the dignity and humane treatment of individuals, even those sentenced to death.


Deena v. Union of India, (1983) 4 SCC 645

The Supreme Court ruled that execution by hanging does not infringe upon the rights guaranteed under Article 21, establishing the method as constitutionally acceptable.


D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., AIR 1997 SC 610

The Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines to be adhered to by investigating agencies during the arrest and detention of individuals, aimed at safeguarding their rights and dignity.


Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260

In this case, the Supreme Court delineated guidelines regarding the arrest of individuals during the course of investigations, ensuring that such actions are conducted within the bounds of the law and respect individual rights.


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

Acknowledging the importance of redressal for violations of fundamental rights, the Supreme Court held that courts possess the authority to award compensation in appropriate cases where there has been a breach of Article 21, ensuring accountability and justice.


MohiniJain v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 3 SCC 666

The Supreme Court declared that the right to education at all levels is a fundamental right emanating from Article 21 of the Constitution.

 
 

State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sundar, (2011) 8 SCC 737

Emphasising the importance of quality education without discrimination, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to education should encompass access to high-quality education regardless of economic, social, or cultural backgrounds.


A.K. Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 710

In its judgement, the Supreme Court established comprehensive guidelines pertaining to arrest under preventive detention laws, including:


- Notification of the detenue's family members about the detention and its location.


- Detaining the individual at a place where they normally reside, except in exceptional circumstances.


- Ensuring the detenue's entitlement to books, writing materials, personal food, and visits from family and friends.


- Maintaining segregation from convicted individuals.


- Prohibiting any treatment of a punitive nature against the detenue.


Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 324

If there is a conflict of two rights qua individuals under Article 21 then in such a situation the test of larger public interest is required. 


K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Aadhaar Case), (2019) 1 SCC 1

Privacy ensures that a human being can lead a life of dignity by securing the inner recesses of the human personality from unwanted intrusions. All matters pertaining to an individual do not qualify as being inherent part of the right to privacy. Only those matters over which there would be a reasonable expectation of privacy are protected by Article 21. 


  • Right to privacy as a fundamental right is not limited to Article 21. It resonates through the entirety of Part III of the Constitution. Privacy is also recognized as a natural right which inheres in individuals and is thus, inalienable.


  • Privacy is both a negative and positive concept. As a negative concept it restrains the State from committing an intrusion upon the life of personal liberty of citizens. As a positive obligation it imposes an obligation on the State to take all necessary measures to protect the privacy of an individual.


  • Good and just social order is one which respects dignity. Dignity is to be treated as ‘empowerment’ or right to development. 


M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2019) 17 SCC 490

It is an established principle of law that the right to life, as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to a decent environment. The right to live in an environment free from smoke and pollution follows from the quality of life which is an inherent part of Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to live with human dignity becomes illusory in absence of a healthy environment.


People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1943 

The Supreme Court affirmed that engagement in construction work poses inherent dangers. Consequently, the Court ruled that employing children in the construction industry constitutes a violation of Article 24 of the Constitution


M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 699

The Supreme Court emphatically ruled that the engagement of children below the age of 14 years in any hazardous industry, mines, or similar undertakings is impermissible. The court elucidated a set of directives aimed at safeguarding the economic, social, and humanitarian rights of children.


Aruna Roy v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 3176

The Supreme Court held that the study of religion in school is not against secular philosophy of the Constitution. Secularism is susceptible to positive meaning i.e. developing understanding and respect towards different religions.


Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 360

The Supreme Court held that offering of prayer or worship is a religious practice but offering at every location where such prayers can be offered would not be an essential religious practice. 


S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1

Supreme Court held that religious denominations must satisfy the following requirements:-


  1. It must be a collection of individuals who have a system of beliefs which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well being. 

  2. It must have a common organisation.

  3. It must be designated by a distinctive name. 


Indian Young lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala Temple Case), (2019) 11 SCC 1 

Right to freedom of religion is not absolute and must be harmonised with other liberties and freedoms and is subject to constitutional morality.


TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481 

Supreme Court laid down the following:- 


  1. State is to be regarded as a unit for determining linguistic as well as religious minority. 

  2.  Institutes which receive aid from the State could be subject to government rules and regulations. 

  3.  In respect of unaided institutions only regulation which the government may put is regarding the qualifications and minimum conditions of eligibility of teachers and principal. 

  4. Conditions of recognition and affiliation by or to a Board or University is to be complied with. 

  5. An aided institution has to admit a reasonable number of non-minority students. 

  6. Minority institutions may have their own procedure and method of admission but the procedure must be fair and transparent.


In Re The Kerala Education Bill, 1957, AIR 1958 SC 956

The State can prescribe regulations to ensure the excellence of the institution. Regulation made in the real interests of efficiency of instruction, discipline, health, sanitation, morality, public order, and the like may undoubtedly be imposed. Such regulations are not restrictive on the substance of the right conferred under Article 30, which is guaranteed, they secure the proper functioning of the institution in the matter of education. 

 
 

St. Stephen ’s College vs. University of Delhi, (1992)1 SCC 558 

So long as the basic right of minorities to manage educational institutions is not taken away, the State is competent to make regulatory legislation. Regulations, however, shall not have the effect of depriving the right of minorities to educate their children in their own institution. 


Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society and Anr. v. State ofGujarat and Anr., (1974) 1SCC717

In the field of administration it is not reasonable to claim that minority institutions will have complete autonomy. Checks on the administration may be necessary in order to ensure that the administration is efficient and sound and will serve the academic needs of the institution. 



Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124

The Supreme Court is the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights and it cannot refuse to entertain applications seeking protection against infringement of such rights. 


Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P., AIR 1963 SC 996

The Fundamental Right to move to the Supreme Court can be appropriately described as the cornerstone of the democratic edifice raised by the Constitution. In discharging the duties assigned to it the courts play the role of sentinel on the qui vive and it must always regard it as solemn duty to protect the fundamental right zealously and vigilantly. 


Daryao v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 1457

When the matter has been heard and decided by the High Court under Article 226 the writ under Article 32 is barred by the principle of res judicata.


Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, AIR 2002 SC 1771

In order to correct the gross miscarriage of justice which cannot be challenged again, the court will allow a curative petition to seek second review of the final order.


Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344

In appropriate cases it becomes necessary to change the social awareness of legal rights and social obligations and take a broader view of the question of locus standi to initiate proceedings.


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

Any member of a public or social group, acting bona fide could invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or High Court seeking redressal against violation of legal or constitutional rights of those persons who on account of poverty or socioeconomic disabilities could not approach the court. 


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

Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 and Supreme Court under Article 32 is an inviolable basic structure of the Constitution. 


BINU TAMTA & ANR. v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ORS, 2023

A Constitutional Court would not issue a writ of mandamus to a legislature or to a rule making body to enact a law on a particular subject and in a particular manner.



DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES


Randhir Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 879 

The Supreme Court held that the directive principle of equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right but since it is a constitutional goal it can be enforced through Article 32.


State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, AIR 1951 SC 228

The Supreme Court held that in case of conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directives Principles, the Fundamental Rights would prevail.


Re Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1957 SC 956

The Supreme Court held that though directive principles cannot override fundamental rights, nevertheless, in determining the scope and ambit of fundamental rights the court may take into account directive principles and adopt a principle of harmonious construction.


Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461

The Supreme Court held that fundamental rights and directive principles aim at the same goal of bringing about a social revolution and establishment of a welfare state and they can be interpreted and applied together.


Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789 

The Supreme Court held that giving absolute primacy to the directive principles disturb the harmony of the Constitution which is the basic feature.

 
 

EXECUTIVE 


U.N. Rao v. Indira Gandhi, AIR 1971 SC 1002

The Supreme Court has held that Article 74(1) is mandatory and the President cannot exercise the executive power without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Even after the dissolution of Lok Sabha the Council of Ministers does not cease to hold the office.


Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549

The Supreme Court held that the President has been made a formal or constitutional head of the executive and the real executive powers are vested in the Council of Ministers. Ordinarily the executive power connotes the residue of governmental functions that remain after legislative and judicial functions are taken away. Executive power is not confined to the administration of laws already enacted but it includes the determination of government policies, maintenance of law and order, foreign policy etc. 


Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2192

Whenever the Constitution requires the satisfaction of the President or Governor, it is not their personal satisfaction. It is the satisfaction of the Council of Ministers who aid and advise the President or Governor generally.


B.P. Singhal v. Union of India, (2010) 6 SCC 331

Governors cannot be dismissed arbitrarily on the ground that the central government had lost confidence in him and he does not agree with its policies and ideologies.


Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 980

The expression ‘required’ in Article 163(1) signifies that the Governor could exercise his discretionary powers only when there is a compelling necessity to do so. The Governor could not in exercise of his discretion do anything which was prohibited to be done. The court has the power to examine the validity of his action when it is mala fide. 


Kehar Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 653

Pardon is an act of grace and cannot be demanded as a matter of right. The President cannot be asked to give reasons for his order. 


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

The pardon power is open to judicial review on limited grounds like non-application of mind, malafide, arbitrariness, irrelevant considerations etc. Pardoning power cannot be exercised arbitrarily.


Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC1 

Inordinate delay in rejection of mercy petition of death row convicts amounted to ‘torture’ and it is a sufficient basis in itself to commute death sentence to life imprisonment.


LEGISLATURE


D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 378

The Supreme Court ruled that successive re-promulgation of ordinances without any attempt to get the Bills passed by the Assembly would amount to fraud on the Constitution and the ordinance promulgated is liable to be struck down. It held that the exceptional power of law making through ordinance cannot be used as a substitute for the legislative power of the State Legislature. 


256 Ordinances were promulgated in the State of Bihar and all of them were kept alive by re-promulgation without being brought before Legislature. The court held it ‘subversion of democratic process’ and ‘colourable exercise of power’ and held it amounted to fraud on the Constitution.


S.P. Anand v. H.D. Deve Gowda, AIR 1997 SC 272

The Supreme Court held that a person who is not a member of either House of the Parliament can be appointed by the Prime Minister for six months. 


R.K. Garg v. Union of India, (1981) 4 SCC 675 

The power to promulgate ordinances is a power exercisable only when both Houses of the Parliament are not in session and it has been conferred ex necessitate rie in order to enable the executive to meet an emergent situation. This power to promulgate an ordinance is co-extensive with the power of Parliament to make laws and the President cannot issue an Ordinance which Parliament cannot enact into a law. 


B.R. Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2001(6) SCALE 309

A minister must be a member of the Legislative Assembly and thus representative of an accountable to the people of the State. A non-member who does not possess the qualifications prescribed by Article 173 or has been disqualified under Article 191 cannot be appointed as Chief Minister.


P.V. Narsimha Rao v. State, AIR 1998 SC 2120

Scope of protection of immunity available to the Members of Parliament is quite wide and is not confined only against judicial proceedings but is available to them against all action and criminal proceedings or anything said or any vote given by them. The object of the protection is to enable members to speak their mind in Parliament freely and fearlessly. 


In Re Keshav Singh, AIR 1965 SC 745 

In case of conflict between provisions under Article 194 and the provisions pertaining to fundamental rights, an attempt  will have to be made to resolve the said conflict by the adoption of the rule of harmonious construction. Articles 194 and 105 are subject to fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22. 


Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 2119

An ‘office of profit’ is an office which is capable of yielding a profit or a pecuniary gain. Nature of payment must be considered as a matter of substance rather than form. The mere use of the word ‘honorarium’ will not take the payment out of the purview of profit. 


JUDICIARY 


Union of India v. Sankalchand Seth, AIR 1977 SC 2328

The Supreme Court held that ‘consultation’ means full and effective consultation. It does not mean concurrence and the President is not bound by such consultation. 


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

The Supreme Court agreed with the opinion in Sankalchand's case. This meant that the executive had supremacy in appointment of judges.


S.C. Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441

The Supreme Court overruled the decision in S.P. Gupta's case. The court held that in the matters of appointment of judges of Supreme Court and High Courts the Chief Justice of India should have primacy.


In re Presidential reference, AIR 1999 SC 1 

The Supreme Court held that the consultation process to be adopted by the Chief Justice of India requires consultation of plurality of judges.


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

The Supreme Court declared both the 99th Constitutional Amendment as well as the NJAC Act, 2014 as unconstitutional and void. Consequently, the collegium system became operative again.


Rajeshwar Singh v. Subrata Roy Sahara, AIR 2014 SC 476 

Supreme Court held that jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 129 is independent of the provisions of Contempt of Court Act, 1971



Bengal Immunity v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661

The Supreme Court held that the Supreme Court can depart from its previous decisions. The expression ‘all courts within the territory of India’ means all courts except the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Supreme Court is not bound by its decision and in the proper case it may reverse it.


State of Jharkhand v. Surendra Kumar Srivastava, (2019) 4 SCC 214

Writ Petition under Article 227 Challenging Judicial Orders are maintainable, but not under Article 226. The Supreme Court reiterated that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of certiorari against judicial orders passed by civil courts is not maintainable. 


Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, AIR 2002 SC 1771

A curative petition under Supreme Court’s inherent power can be filed, seeking review of a decision which has become final after the dismissal of a review petition under Article 137. 



M. Siddiq v. Suresh Das, (2020) 1 SCC 1

The concept of justice, equity and good conscience’ as a tool to ensure a just outcome also finds expression in Article 142 of the Constitution. The phrase ‘is necessary for doing complete justice’ is of wide amplitude and encompasses a power of equity which is employed when the strict application of law is inadequate to produce just outcome. 


Balakrishna Ram v. Union of India, (2020) 2 SCC 442

The principle that the High Court should not exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction when an efficacious alternative remedy is available, is a rule of prudence and not a rule of law. The writ courts normally refrain from exercising their extraordinary power if the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy. The existence of such remedy however, does not mean that the jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted. 


State v. Kalyan Singh, (2017) 7 SCC 444 

Article 142 gives a very wide power to do complete justice to the parties before the court. It is a power which exists in the Supreme Court because the judgement delivered by it will finally end the litigation between the parties. By Article 142 equity has been given precedence over law. However, it is not the kind of equity that will disregard mandatory, substantive provisions of law. 

 
 

LEGISLATIVE RELATIONS 


State of Bombay v. R.M.D.C., AIR 1957 SC 699

The Supreme Court held that extraterritorial legislation can be upheld only when there is a sufficient nexus between the object sought to be achieved and the State seeking to achieve them. The connection must be real and not illusory.


Javed v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 3057

The Supreme Court held that the Constitution gives autonomy to the Centre and the States within their respective fields. The legislation of one State cannot be held to be discriminatory against its citizens simply because Parliament or State Legislatures of other States have not chosen to enact similar laws. 


Prafulla Kumar v. Bank of Commerce, Khulna, AIR 1947 PC 60

The court held that a clear-cut distinction is not possible between the legislative powers of the Union and the State Legislatures because they are bound to overlap. In ascertaining the pith and substance of the Act the court must consider :- 


  1.  the object of the Act,

  2. the scope of the Act and

  3. the effect as the whole.


State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318

The court held the Bombay Prohibition Act, as valid because the pith and substance of the Act fell in State List even though it incidentally encroached upon the Union List.


K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa, AIR 1956 SC 375

The whole doctrine of colourable legislation is based upon the maxim that you cannot do indirectly what you cannot do directly. The doctrine has reference to the competence and not to the motives, bond fides or mala fides of the legislature. 


FREEDOM OF TRADE AND COMMERCE 


Atiabari Tea Co. v. State of Assam, AIR 1961 SC 232

The object behind the provisions from Article 301-307 is to create and preserve a national economic fibre. It breaks down the border between the States and creates one economic unit.


The Supreme Court held that imposition of tax or duty in every case would not amount per se to an infringement of Article 301. Taxes simpliciter as opposed to discriminatory taxation is not within the scope of Article 301. If the State Legislature wants to impose compensatory tax then it has to take the President's assent under Article 304(b). 


State of Bombay v. R.M.D.C, AIR 1957 SC 699

It was held that protection offered under Article 301 is available to lawful trading activity and does not extend to activities which are res extra commercium.


Automobile Transport Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1962 SC 1406

The Supreme Court recognized the concept of regulatory and compensatory taxes and held that compensatory taxes are outside the purview of Article 301. Regulatory measures imposing compensatory taxes for the use of trading facilities do not come within the purview of restrictions contemplated under Article 301 and such measures need not comply with the requirements of Article 304(b).


EMERGENCY 


A.D.M.,Jabalpur v .Shivkant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207

The Supreme Court held that during the proclamation of emergency rights under Article 21 can also be suspended and no person shall have any locus standi for enforcement of such right. This case is also known as habeas corpus case.


Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789

The Supreme Court held that there is no bar to judicial review of the validity of proclamation of emergency. However, the court’s power is limited to examining whether the limitations conferred by the Constitution have been observed or not. If the satisfaction of the President is absurd, mala fide or perverse then it would be liable to be challenged in the court of law. 


S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC1

The Supreme Court held that judicial review of Presidential proclamation is permissible if the allegations of mala fides have been levelled in the petition.


The Court laid down the following guidelines:-


  1. Proclamation dissolving State Legislative Assembly is subject to judicial review;

  2. President’s rule cannot be imposed on the ground of political considerations; 

  3. Imposition of President’s rule and dissolution of State Assembly cannot be done together;

  4. The State Assembly can only be dissolved after Parliament approves the proclamation.

  5. Existence of materials is a pre-condition to form the basis of satisfaction for imposition of President’s rule. 


Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India, (2006) 2 SCC1

The Supreme Court held that the Governor, while recommending dissolution of the Assembly, had to annex with the report relevant materials substantiating his decision. In absence of relevant materials it will be considered as a personal opinion of the Governor.


Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789

There is no bar to judicial review of the validity of a proclamation of emergency issued by the President under Article 352. The court’s power is limited only to examining whether the limitations conferred by the Constitution have been observed or not. Where the satisfaction is absurd, perverse, mala fide or based on wholly irrelevant considerations, it would be no satisfaction at all and it would be liable to be challenged before a court of law. 


AMENDMENT


Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 458

The Supreme Court held that power to amend the Constitution including the fundamental rights is contained in Article 368 and the word ‘law’ in Article 13(2) includes only an ordinary law made in exercise of the legislative power and does not include the constitutional amendment which is made in exercise of constituent power. Constitutional amendment will be valid even if it abridges or takes away any fundamental rights. 


Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845 

The Supreme Court approved the majority judgement in Shankari Prasad's case and held that ‘amendment of the Constitution’ means amendment of all parts of the Constitution.


Golaknath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643

The Supreme Court prospectively overruled its earlier decisions in Shankari Prasad's case and Sajjan Singh's case. The court held that Parliament had no power, from the date of decision, to amend Part III of the Constitution so as to take away or abridge Fundamental Rights.


Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 

The validity of the 24th Constitutional Amendment was challenged and the Supreme Court held that Parliament can amend any Part of the Constitution but cannot amend basic structure of the constitution. 


Minerva Mills v. Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1784

The Supreme Court struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 on the ground that it destroys basic structure of the Constitution as limited amending power is the basic structure of the Constitution.


I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2007 SC 861

The Supreme Court held that any law placed in the 9th schedule of the Constitution after April 24,1974, would be open to challenge in the court of law on the ground that it destroys the basic structure of the Constitution. 


In Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 2023

Holding that the power under Article 370(3) cannot be exercised after the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly would lead to the freezing of the process of integration contrary to the purpose of introducing the provision. If the contention of the petitioners on the interpretation of Article 370 vis-à-vis the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly is accepted then Article 370(3) would become redundant and would lose its temporary character.

 
 








Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page