Landmark Judgements by the Supreme Court of India
- A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950):
In this case, the Supreme Court extensively interpreted the Fundamental Rights contained in part III of the Indian Constitution. The main articles dealt in the case were article 14, 19, 21 and 22. The case is also known as Preventive Detention Case.
Background of the case:
A.K. Gopalan, a prominent communist leader had been detained by the state of Madras since 1947 under the section 3(1) of the Preventive Detention Act 1950 without being put on trial. Mr. A.K. Gopalan filed a writ petition under article 32(1) of the Indian Constitution. He challenged his detention and put forth the issues of violation of his fundamental rights under article 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution.
- Article 14: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
- Article 19: All citizens shall have the right— (a) to freedom of speech and expression; (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) to form associations or unions; (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India; (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India;
- Article 21: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by
- Article 22(1): Any person who is in custody has to be informed as to why he has been arrested. Further, he cannot be denied the right to consult an advocate. (2) – The arrested individual should be produced before a judicial magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.
Judgement:
The judgement was delivered by the bench of 6 judges where the majority opinion in the matter was that Article 21 which covered procedure established by law would simply establish by the state.
According to the Supreme Court, Preventive Detention Act 1950 does not violate the article 19 of the Indian Constitution. Right to freedom enshrined under article 19 does not apply to the citizens whose freedom is curtailed by law.
Justice Fazl Ali dissented to the judgement by putting forth his view that Section 12 and Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act 1950 both were violating Article 21 of the constitution.
- Keshavanada Bharati and others v. State of Kerala (1973):
The Keshavananda Bharati case had put limitations to the limitless powers exercised by the Government of India. The concept of basic structure doctrine came into existence after the landmark judgement.
Background of the case:
Keshavananda Bharati was a priest and head of an organization named Edneer Mutt. The Keshvananda Bharti possessed some property in the Mutt. The Government of Kerala passed the Land Reforms Amendment Act 1969 and acquired a portion of property as per the act. The Keshavanda Bharati filed the petition in 1970 to seek his following fundamental rights:
- Article 14: Right to equality
- Article 19(1)(f): Freedom to acquire property
- Article 25: Right to practice & propagate religion
- Article 26: Right to manage religious affairs
- Article 31: Compulsory acquisition of property
The Kerala state government again came up with new reform Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1971.
Judgement:
The parliament can amend any part of the Indian Constitution except the basic structure of the Constitution. In this case, the Supreme Court overruled its judgment in the Golak Nath case. It upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment Act and stated that Parliament is empowered to abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights. It ruled that the constituent power of Parliament under Article 368 does not enable it to alter the basic structure of the Constitution.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):
This case widened the scope of article 21. It gave a new and highly varied interpretation to the meaning of ‘life and personal liberty’ under Article 21 of the Constitution. This case is called as golden triangle case where art 14, 19 and 21 were challenged together and it was appreciated by the apex court.
Background of the case:
Maneka Gandhi is a woman journalist who was about to go to other country for the purpose of some official work. For which she applied for the passport under Passport Act 1967. She received an official notice about her passport being impounded in the capacity of public interest. She was required to surrender her passport within 7 days from the date notice received. Maneka Gandhi now filled a writ petition under article 32 of the constitution of India challenging action of government in impounding her passport and declining to give reasons for doing so. She challenges sec 10(3)(c) unconstitutional because it’s a violation of fundamental right under art. 14,19(1).
Judgement:
The judgement was delivered by 7 judges’ bench and held that sec 10(3)(c) is violative of article 14. The Supreme Court overruled A.K. Gopalan’s case and held that Articles 14, 19 and 21 cannot be read and interpreted separately into watertight compartments but should be read together to attain the principles of natural justice. The Court stated that Articles 14, 19 and 21 are interrelated and established a rule called the “golden triangle” or “trinity”.
- Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum and Others (1985):
This case laid the ground for thousands of women to make legitimate claims that were not permitted before. This case led a milestone in the history of Muslim woman fighting for their rights. It raised the issues related to maintenance of women after the divorce.
Background of the case:
Mr Mohd. Ahmad and Shah Bano were married couple. They had two daughters and three sons. In 1975, Shah Bano with her children was abandoned by her husband. she brought an appeal before the Judicial Magistrate of first class, Indore claiming maintenance of Rs. 500 per month under Section 125 of CrPC.
Ahmad khan dissolved the marriage by uttering talaq thrice and paid the sum of Rs. 3000 as a mahr and some sort of sum for the iddat period (3 months). According to Muslim Personal Laws based on Shariat, Ahmad Khan contested the claim on the grounds that the Muslim Personal Law in India required the husband to only provide maintenance for the iddat period after divorce.
Judgement:
After detailed arguments, the decision was passed by the Supreme Court of India in 1985. On the question whether CrPC, 1973, which applies to all Indian citizens regardless of their religion, could apply in this case. Then Chief Justice of India Y.V. Chandrachud upheld the decision of the High Court that gave orders for maintenance to Shah Bano under CrPC. The apex court increased the maintenance sum.
- MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986):
This case set an awareness after the infamous Bhopal Gas Leak Tragedy. It played an important role in environmental advocacy and to apply the rule of absolute liability in India.
Background of the case:
A Delhi based privately owned Fertilizer plant was situated in the densely populated area of Kirti Nagar. The hazardous chemical expelling out from the plant was creating the public nuisances in the locality. MC Mehta, a public attorney filed a writ petition under article 21 and 32 of the Indian Constitution in 1985.
While the petition was pending, a tragedy broke out. There happened the leakage of Oleum Gas from the plant and caused severe harm to the people who inhaled the gas. The issue ordered Shriram Food and Fertilizer to shut down the manufacturing of lethal substances, including Chlorine, Super Chlorine, Oleum, Phosphate, etc.
Judgement:
The court came out with the judgement to held the factory absolutely liable stating the reason that factory was engaged in inherently dangerous activities. Since then, the rule of absolute liability applies in India.
- Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992):
Positive Discrimination commonly referred as reservation in India to uplift the backward or deprived section of the society in order to attain the socio-economic equality. The Indira Sawhney v. Union of India was one such landmark case in the reservation policy.
Background of the case:
During the 1992 elections, VP Singh heading the national front stated that implementing the recommendations of the second backward class commission also known as Mandal commission was one of the major parts of their election manifesto. Hence, when the National Front formed the government, these recommendations were implemented. Recommendations of the Mandal Commission were as follow:
- OBCs must be provided a reservation of 27% in public sector and government jobs.
- They should be provided with the same 27% reservation in promotions at all levels of public services.
- The reserved quota, if unfilled, should be carried forward for a period of 3 years.
A group of individuals, led by Indira Sawhney, raised concerns about the implementation of the Mandal Commission’s recommendations. They argued that reservations based solely on caste were inconsistent with the principles of equality and non-discrimination. They contended that the reservation policy should be based on economic criteria rather than caste.
Judgement:
The judgement was given by the nine-judges bench and held that reservation policy for OBCs should not exceed the cap of 50% of the total seats available in the government job or educational institution. The court further held that the creamy layer or the socially and economically advanced members of the OBCs should be excluded from the reservation policy as they did not require reservation.
- S R Bommai v. Union of India (1994):
According to Article 356, the Central government can take control of any state government by the President’s proclamation if the state government fails to work according to the provisions of the Indian Constitution. The SR Bommai case is related to the violation of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution.
Background of the case:
SR Bommai, then Chief Minister of Karnataka belonged to the Janta Party which was the Karnataka’s largest governing party in the legislature. This Janata Party merged with Janta Dal Party after some defections and disputes among the existing member of the party.
The governor of the Karnataka sent a report to the president about the ongoing situation of the party and stated that party possess no majority. The president proclaimed the president’s rule under Article 356 in the state and reasoned that there exist no party to rule the state.
Judgement:
The historic judgment by the nine-judge Bench in SR Bommai Vs Union of India in March 1994 laid down the supremacy of the floor test in determining the support enjoyed by the party in power. This judgment has minimized the misuse of article 356 on malefice grounds and helped to preserve the nature of this article.
The court ruled that the validity of a proclamation of President’s Rule is subject to judicial review.
- Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997):
This case cites the evil of sexual harassment of a woman at the work place. Sexual Harassment is an uninvited/ unwelcome sexual favor or gesture from one gender towards other. It makes the person feel humiliated, offended and insulted to whom it is been done.
Background of the case:
Bhanwari Devi was a social activist working under Women’s Development Project (WDP) in Rajasthan. Abiding by her work she took the issue of child marriage in the village for which she faced ignorance and criticism. She managed to lodge a complaint again child marriage which was being held in the village. But no police action was taken and the marriage was performed successfully. To take the revenge, Bhanwari Devi was attacked by the village men and raped by them. Her medical examination was done after 52 hours.
The PIL was filed by a women’s rights group known as ‘Vishaka’. It laid its focus on the enforcement of the fundamental rights of women at the Workplace under the provisions of Article 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, it also raised the issue of the need for protection of women from sexual harassment at workplace.
Judgement:
This case made the Supreme Court realize the need for proper and effective legislation that would deal with sexual harassment at workplace. The judgment was given by three judges bench. The apex court held that harassment at the workplace is a clear violation of a woman’s fundamental rights under Article 14,15,19(1)(g) and 21.
The Vishaka Guidelines were formed to prevent the sexual harassment of women at workplace.
- Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017):
The case focused on the constitutional validity of Triple Talaq & affirmed that the fundamental rights of Muslim women, including the right to equality & dignity, cannot be violated by arbitrary divorce practices.
Background of the case:
Shayara Bano and Rizwan were married for 15 years. Shayra Bano had been subjected to dowry harassment and domestic violence. She was divorced in 2016. She filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court.
The petition stated that the practices of Nikah- Halala, Triple Talaq and polygamy under Muslim personal law were unconstitutional, illegal and violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art 14, 15, 21, and 25 of the Indian Constitution.
Judgement:
The SC established a 5-Judge Constitution Bench on Triple Talaq and it was declared unconstitutional under Article 14 and Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution. The Court determined that the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 had penalised the practice as a matter of personal law. The punishment for committing this crime is imprisonment for up to 3 years.
Triple Talaq is against the fundamental principles of Islam, and since Shariah contradicts Quran, what is evil in theology cannot be good in legislation.
- Justice K S Puttuswamy v Union of India (2017):
Justice Puttaswamy challenged the constitutionality of Aadhar before the Supreme Court by filing a writ petition. The right to privacy is widely considered one of the basic human rights. This case is also referred as Adhaar case.
Background of the case:
In 2010, the National Identification Authority of India Bill was passed by the Commission. Retired Justice K S Puttaswamy and Mr. Parvesh Sharma in November 2012 filed a PIL Writ Petition in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of Aadhaar. The scheme was challenged as it was violative of Fundamental Rights. The lawsuit was started after Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a former Karnataka High Court judge, filed a petition in regard to the Aadhaar Project, which was handled by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). The Aadhaar number was a 12-digit identifying number given to Indian citizens by the UIDAI.
Judgement:
In accordance with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, the nine-judge bench unanimously acknowledged that the right to privacy is a basic freedom.
The judges’ concurring views, which acknowledged the right to privacy as a fundamental right that encompasses autonomy over personal decisions, physical integrity, and protection of personal information, strengthened the right to privacy.
Author’s Name: Kashish Sahu
