supreme court judgements Flashcards
Preamble: In Re Berubari Union
Preamble shows general purpose but is not part of the Constitution or source of rights; aids in legal interpretation.
Preamble: Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala
Preamble is part of the Constitution; used for interpretation; amendable but basic features cannot be altered.
Constitutionalism and Rule of Law: I.R Coelho v. State of TN
Constitutionalism requires control over government power to uphold democratic principles; promotes checks and balances.
Constitutionalism and Rule of Law: Maru Ram v. UOI
Abhors absolutism; based on rule of law with objective criteria replacing subjective satisfaction.
Constitutionalism and Rule of Law: Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI
Constitution transforms relations between state and individual, and among individuals, emphasizing egalitarianism and anti-discriminatory ethos.
Basic Structure Doctrine: Shankari Prasad v. Union of India
Art. 368 allows constitutional amendments, including fundamental rights; “Law” under Art. 13(2) does not include constitutional amendments.
Basic Structure Doctrine: Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
The term “law” under Art. 13(2) does not include constitutional amendments.
Basic Structure Doctrine: Golaknath v. State of Punjab
Parliament cannot amend Part III to abridge or take away fundamental rights; “Law” under Art. 13(2) includes constitutional amendments.
Basic Structure Doctrine: Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Implied limitations on amending powers; basic features of Constitution cannot be damaged; Art. 31C giving unrestricted powers to parliament is against judicial review.
Basic Structure Doctrine: Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain
Affirmed basic structure doctrine; struck down 39th Amendment Act which restricted court jurisdiction over Prime Minister’s election disputes.
Basic Structure Doctrine: Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India
Amendment power under Art. 368 is limited; absolute power is not permissible; limited amending power is part of basic structure.
Basic Structure Doctrine: Waman Rao v. Union of India
Doctrine of basic structure not retrospective; acts prior to doctrine remain valid; future amendments to Ninth Schedule can be challenged.
Basic Structure Doctrine: L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
Judicial review under Art. 32 (Supreme Court) and Art. 226 (High Court) is part of basic structure; cannot be diluted by administrative tribunals.
Basic Structure Doctrine: IR Coelho v. Union of India
Art. 368 comes with restrictions; basic structure of Constitution must be maintained; amendments after April 24, 1973 must align with essential features.
State of Madras vs Champakam Dorairajan
Struck down a 1927 Government Order regarding caste-based reservation in government jobs and educational institutions.
Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India
- Economic criterion alone cannot identify a class as backward unless economic backwardness is due to social backwardness.<br></br>- 27% reservation for backward classes valid, with Creamy Layer exclusion.<br></br>- Total reservations under Articles 16(1) and 16(4) should not exceed 50% in any grade, cadre, or service.<br></br>- Article 16(4) allows classification into backward and more/most backward classes.<br></br>- Reservations in promotions are unconstitutional due to efficiency concerns.<br></br>- Overall reservation should not exceed 50%, and reservations in promotions are not allowed.
Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2020)
100% reservation for STs deprives General category, SCs, and OBCs of due representation; violative of Articles 14, 15, and 16; equality of opportunity cannot be arbitrarily denied.
Dr Jaishree Laxman Rao Patil v. The Chief Minister (Maratha Reservation case 2021)
Articles 338B and 342A give the President the final say on inclusion/exclusion of SEBCs; states can only suggest modifications; Parliament has the ultimate authority.
State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph (2021)
Persons with Disabilities Act of 1995 recognizes reservation in promotion; lack of recruitment rules provision does not negate the right as it stems from legislation.
Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra (2021)
Read down Section 12(2)(c) Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act; OBC reservation in local bodies can be up to 50% of total reserved seats for SCs/STs/OBCs.
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India
103rd Amendment and EWS Reservations upheld as constitutionally valid in a 3:2 ratio judgment by the Supreme Court.
Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India
Validated OBC reservation in NEET exams for All India Quota seats; Government’s power to provide reservations under Article 15 (4) and (5) strengthens “substantive equality” in Article 15(1).
TMA Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka
Government cannot impose quota in private unaided institutions as it violates Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1)(g). Enactment of the 93rd Constitutional Amendment Act followed.
P.A. Inamdar and Others v. State of Maharashtra
Enforcing state reservation policy on unaided institutions infringes on their autonomy; private institutions cannot be forced to admit less meritorious candidates.
Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India
The 93rd Amendment Act is valid for state-maintained and aided institutions, does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
Society for Unaided Private Schools for Rajasthan vs. Union of India (2013)
Validated quota under the Right to Education Act, 2009, even in private unaided institutions; education is not purely commercial, and Article 21A obligates state action.
C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India (1967)
Government is not constitutionally required to provide reservations for SCs and STs in promotions or initial recruitment stages.
Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
Extended reservation policy to promotions not permissible; reservations capped at 50%; relaxation of qualifying marks for promotions and creamy layer concept introduced.
M. Nagaraj vs. Union of India (2006)
Upheld reservations for SCs and STs in promotions with conditions: proof of backwardness, quantifiable data on representation, and impact on administrative efficiency.
Faculty Association of AIIMS vs. Union of India (2013)
Merit should be the sole criteria for some jobs; this was overruled later, allowing the government to amend the Constitution to provide reservation for super-speciality posts.
Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018)
No need to collect quantifiable data to show SC/ST backwardness for promotion reservations.
B.K Pavithra v. Union of India (2019)
Upheld Karnataka’s Act for consequential seniority to SCs and STs with retrospective effect from 1978.
Mukesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand (2020)
Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) are enabling provisions; state discretion in reservations must be supported by quantifiable data on representation inadequacy.
Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984)
Treating individuals from different states as outsiders denies constitutional rights and undermines national unity.
Sunanda Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1995)
Struck down policy giving extra weightage to Telugu medium candidates; affirmed Pradeep Jain’s observation.
Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (2002)
Measures based on localism are not supported by constitutional equality mandates.
Uttar Pradesh v. Pradip Tandon
Reservation based on place of birth is unconstitutional; rural area reservations cannot be justified as representing backward classes.
Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras
Freedom of speech is fundamental; pre-censorship on journals is a restriction on press liberty, which is a vital part of free speech and expression.
Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India
Freedom of the press is included under Article 19(1)(a); interference with newspapers’ content and circulation is impermissible.
Election Commission of India v. MR Vijaya Bhaskar (2021)
Media coverage of court hearings is part of freedom of press; ECI’s plea against remarks on its COVID-19 handling was rejected, emphasizing media’s role in accountability.
Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India & Others
Citizens have a fundamental right to assembly and peaceful protest, which cannot be removed by arbitrary executive or legislative actions.
Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (Shaheen Bagh Case)
Right to protest in public places is not absolute; public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely. Protests must be conducted in designated areas.
Rakesh Vaishav v. Union of India (Farm Laws Case 2021)
Right to protest is fundamental and can be exercised within public order. Protests must be non-violent and lawful, ensuring no damage to life or property.
Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala
Internet access is part of the fundamental right to life and liberty, as well as privacy under Article 21. It is essential for freedom of speech and expression.
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India
Right to freedom of speech and expression, and to carry on any profession or business over the internet, is protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g).
AK Gopalan v. State of Madras
No violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 13, 19, 21, and 22 if detention is as per law. Narrow view of Article 21.
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration
Right to life includes the right to a healthy life, enjoyment of faculties, and protection of tradition, culture, and peace.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
Right to live includes human dignity; ‘Procedure established by law’ must be ‘right and just and fair,’ not arbitrary or oppressive.
In Re: Alarming Newspaper Report Regarding Kanwar Yatra in State of UP (2021)
Supreme Court emphasized that the health of citizens and their right to life is paramount, overriding religious sentiments during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Kerala Union of Working Journalists v. Union of India (2021)
Right to life extends to undertrials; court directed the transfer of a journalist for medical treatment, highlighting the right to health and dignity.
M.P Sharma v. Satish Chandra
The Constitution’s framers did not intend for search and seizure to be subject to a fundamental right of privacy.
Kharak Singh v. State of UP
Right to privacy included under Article 21 as part of personal liberty, free from direct or indirect encroachments.
Govind vs. State of MP
Right to privacy is not absolute; it is subject to reasonable restrictions and case-by-case development.
Rajagopal vs. State of T.N
Privacy under Article 21 includes the right to be let alone; protection against publication of personal matters without consent.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Aadhaar Case)
Right to Privacy is fundamental and covers all personal information and choices. Introduced a four-fold test for proportionality: legitimate goal, proportionality, and procedural guarantees.
Justice (Retd.) K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
Right to control one’s personal data and existence on the Internet is part of the right to privacy under Article 21.
Zulfiqar Ahman Khan v. M/S Quintillion Business Media [2019]
Right to be forgotten and the right to be left alone are inherent aspects of the right to privacy. #MeToo campaign should not be used to indefinitely tarnish reputations.
Jorawer Singh Mundy v. Union of India (2021)
Interim protection granted to an individual whose acquittal details were still online, impacting his job prospects. Ordered removal of such information from search engines.
X v. YOUTUBE.COM [2021]
Interim relief granted to a Bengali actress to prevent publication and streaming of private videos on platforms like YouTube, protecting her privacy and right to be forgotten.
Zahira Habibulla Sheikh v. State of Gujarat
Fair trial means elimination of bias, prejudice, and intimidation; failure to hear material witnesses is a denial of a fair trial.
Neelam Katara v. Union of India
Witnesses’ failure to testify due to fear or inducement undermines the administration of justice, potentially obliterating its foundation.
P. Rathinam v. Union of India
Recognized the right to die with dignity; struck down Section 309 of IPC (Attempt to commit suicide) as unconstitutional.
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab
Overruled Rathinam decision; held that suicide is inconsistent with the concept of the right to life.
Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India
Addressed legality of passive euthanasia; held that right to life does not include the right to die.
Common Cause v. Union of India [2018]
Introduced ‘living will’ as an Advanced Medical Directive; recognized the right to die with dignity under certain conditions.
Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India
Upheld AFSPA provisions without referring to constitutional principles of equality, liberty, and life.
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India [Pegasus Case]
National security claims cannot preclude judicial review. Court emphasized the need for scrutiny despite security concerns.
Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1989)
While not explicitly a fundamental right, education is mandated by Directive Principles and the Preamble. The state must provide education within its capacity.
Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Right to education is recognized until age 14. State can regulate private institutions to prevent commercialization of education. Capitation fees are denied; adequate fees are permitted.
Farzana Batool v. Union of India & Ors. [2021]
State has an obligation to facilitate access to education at all levels. Access to professional education is not a fundamental right but is essential for equitable opportunities.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India
Freedom of religion is guaranteed to all; the State treats all religions equally. Secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution.
TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka
Article 30(1) ensures equal treatment for minority and majority institutions. Management of minority institutions should aim to preserve their special characteristics but must adhere to regulations. For purely secular education institutions, excellence is paramount.
State of UP v. Raj Narain (1975)
The right to know is part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). Citizens have the right to know about public acts and the functioning of public functionaries.
S.P Gupta v. UOI (1981)
Right to know is implicit in the right to free speech and expression; disclosure of government functioning is a rule.
PUCL v. UOI
Right to information is elevated to human rights for transparent and accountable governance.
Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India [2019]
Directed that vacancies in Central and State Information Commissions be filled within 6 months, advertised timely, and selection criteria be made public.
CPIO, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal
CJI’s office is under RTI Act. Disclosure of judges’ personal assets is not a violation of their privacy.
DAV College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instruction (2019)
NGOs receiving substantial government finances are considered ‘public authorities’ under the RTI Act. Substantial finances include direct or indirect support, such as free or discounted land.
Champak Dorairajan vs. State of Madras
Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) cannot override Fundamental Rights.
State of Kerala vs. N.M. Thomas
Fundamental Rights and DPSPs should be harmonized; efforts should be made to resolve conflicts between them.
Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation
DPSPs are fundamental in governance; they must be considered alongside Fundamental Rights.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India
Harmony between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs is part of the Constitution’s basic structure. Any disruption of this balance violates the doctrine.
Bandhu Mukti Morcha v. Union of India
The right to live with human dignity under Article 21 derives from DPSPs, particularly Article 39(e), (f), 41, and 42.
Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab
The Constitution differentiates the functions of government branches but does not rigidly enforce separation of powers.
I.C. Golak Nath v State of Punjab
The Constitution creates three major branches (Legislature, Executive, Judiciary) and defines their powers and limits.
Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India
Separation of powers is part of the Constitution’s basic structure; no organ of government can usurp the functions of another.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain
India has a broad sense of separation of powers; it is not as rigid as in the US or Australia.
Guru Gobind Basu v. Shankari Prasad Ghosal
Test for determining office of profit involves factors like appointment authority, power to terminate, remuneration source, and powers of the position.
Pradyut Bordoloi v. Swapan Roy
Four principles for determining office of profit: control by government, remuneration, specific powers, and influence through patronage.
Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India
Payment of honorarium, allowances, and other perks constitute remuneration and are considered profit.
Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab
Ruling against the deification of any individual, including Lieutenant Governor.
B.P. Singhal v. Union of India
President can remove a Governor without reason but not arbitrarily or unreasonably.
Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker
Governor’s discretionary power under Article 163 must be exercised with reason, good faith, and caution.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018)
Elected Government should have adequate powers; referral to the President is exceptional and used to uphold constitutional morality.
R.C Cooper v. Union of India
President’s ordinance power can be challenged if immediate action isn’t required and if it bypasses legislative debate.
AK Roy v. Union of India
Judicial review is applicable to presidential satisfaction regarding ordinances, but it should be on substantial grounds, not casual.
DC Wadhwa v. State of Bihar
Re-promulgation of ordinances without legislative consideration violates the Constitution.
Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar
Ordinance power is conditional on necessity for immediate action. Re-promulgation is considered a constitutional fraud and undermines democratic processes.
Pardoning Power <br></br> Maru Ram v. Union of India
Central and State Governments advise the President and Governor on pardoning powers; they must act according to this advice.
Pardoning Power <br></br> Kehar Singh v. Union of India
The President can review evidence and reach a different conclusion than the court. This process is executive, not judicial, and no oral hearing is required.
Pardoning Power <br></br> Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh
Judicial review of presidential or gubernatorial pardons is possible if the order was made without proper consideration, was arbitrary, or based on irrelevant factors.
Pardoning Power <br></br> Shatrughnan Chauhan v. Union of India
Inordinate delays in mercy petitions can lead to commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment. Guidelines include timely communication of rejection and a minimum 14-day interval before execution.
Appointment of Judges <br></br> S.P. Gupta v. Union of India [First Judges Case]
Consultation’ with the Chief Justice is advisory; the final decision on judge appointments rests with the Executive.
Appointment of Judges <br></br> Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India [Second Judges Case]
The Chief Justice’s opinion must be given primacy, equating ‘consultation’ with ‘concurrence’ in judicial appointments.
Appointment of Judges <br></br> In Re Presidential Reference [Third Judges Case]
The Chief Justice’s opinion must be based on consultations with a collegium of senior judges, and all opinions must be documented.
Appointment of Judges <br></br> Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Another v. Union of India
The 99th Constitutional Amendment was struck down, reinstating the collegium system of appointments.
Judiciary-related and Contempt of Court Cases <br></br> Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court [2018]
Supreme Court proceedings of national importance can be broadcasted, with guidelines balancing public access to justice.
Judiciary-related and Contempt of Court Cases <br></br> Brahma Prakash Sharma v State of U.P.
Contempt proceedings aim to protect public confidence in the judiciary, not to shield judges from criticism.
Judiciary-related and Contempt of Court Cases <br></br> Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar of Orissa
The law of contempt balances freedom of expression with maintaining judicial authority.
Judiciary-related and Contempt of Court Cases <br></br> In Re: S. Mulgaokar
Judges should adopt a charitable attitude towards criticism aimed at improving the judiciary.
Judiciary-related and Contempt of Court Cases <br></br> P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker
Contempt provisions should not be used to uphold judges’ personal dignity but to ensure justice administration is not hampered.
Judiciary-related and Contempt of Court Cases <br></br> In Re: Hon’ble Justice Shri C.S. Karnan (2017)
Justice Karnan was found guilty of criminal contempt for making baseless allegations against other judges.
Judiciary-related and Contempt of Court Cases <br></br> Abhishek Kumar Singh v. G. Pattanaik [2021]
Contempt action must be based on clear, wilful disobedience of court orders.
Judgements on Centre-State Relations <br></br> S R Bommai v. Union of India
The Constitution’s federal nature is fundamental. States have independent existence, and the President’s power under Article 356 is subject to judicial review.
Anti-Defection Law <br></br> Ravi S. Naik vs Union of India
Voluntarily giving up membership includes conduct beyond formal resignation.
Anti-Defection Law <br></br> Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachilhu and Others
The decision of the Presiding Officer on defection is reviewable on grounds such as violation of constitutional mandate and noncompliance with natural justice.
Anti-Defection Law <br></br> Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly [2020]
The Speaker should decide on disqualification petitions within 3 months. An independent tribunal is recommended for such matters.
Jagmohan v. State of U.P
The Supreme Court held that the death penalty does not violate Articles 14, 19, and 21. The choice between death and life imprisonment should be based on circumstances, facts, and the nature of the crime.
Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P
The Court held that capital punishment is only justified if the criminal is shown to be dangerous to society.
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
Death penalty is constitutional only when applied in the rarest of rare cases. Guidelines include: (1) Only in the gravest cases; (2) Consideration of offender and crime circumstances; (3) Death sentence if life imprisonment seems inadequate; (4) Balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab
Guidelines for applying the “rarest of rare” rule include: “Manner of commission of murder”, “Motive”, “Anti-social nature”, “Magnitude of crime”, and “Personality of victim”.
Mithu v. State of Punjab
Mandatory death penalty under Section 303 IPC was struck down as unconstitutional for violating Articles 14 and 21 due to unreasonable distinctions.
State of Punjab vs Dalbir Singh
Mandatory death penalty for crimes under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act was ruled unconstitutional.
Mohd. Ahmad Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum
Supreme Court granted maintenance to Shah Bano after triple talaq, using secular law instead of Islamic law.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan
Guidelines issued to prevent sexual harassment in workplaces, with complaints directed to a designated committee.
Shayara Bano vs Union of India
Triple Talaq (talaq-e-biddat) was declared unconstitutional by a 3:2 majority.
Laxmi v. Union of India
Issued guidelines for acid attack survivors, including restrictions on acid sales, compulsory treatment, and compensation.
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala
Lifted the ban on women aged 10-50 from entering the Sabarimala temple, ruling it a violation of Articles 14 and 25.
Joseph Shine v. Union of India
Struck down Section 497 IPC, declaring it unconstitutional for criminalizing adultery and perpetuating gender stereotypes.
Federation of Obstetric and Gynecological Societies of India (FOGSI) v. Union of India
Declared preference for male children as violative of Article 39A and Article 51A(e). The PCPNDT Act is upheld to address female foeticide and skewed sex ratio.
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020)
Daughters have equal coparcenary rights in HUF property from birth; those born before the amendment (Sept 9, 2005) have rights from the amendment date.
The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya (2020)
Women should be granted permanent commissions in all streams of the army and be eligible for command assignments.
Union of India v. Mudrika Singh [2021]
Right against sexual harassment is part of the right to life and dignity under Article 21.
Kush Kalra v. Union of India [2021]
Allowed women to appear for the NDA entrance exam; UPSC directed to publicize the order.
National Legal Service Authority v. Union of India
Declared transgender people as ‘third gender’, affirmed their fundamental rights, and granted them the right to self-identify. Reservations in education and jobs were mandated.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
Scrapped Section 377 IPC, declaring it irrational and arbitrary; affirmed LGBT rights as equal to ordinary citizens.
Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs State of Maharashtra [2018]
Diluted the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, including provisions for anticipatory bail and preliminary inquiry; arrest only with credible information.
Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India [2020]
Sustained the Constitutional validity of section 18-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018, nullifying the effect of the Kashinath Mahajan case.
UOI v. ADR [2002]
Made it mandatory for candidates to file affidavits disclosing pending criminal cases.
Lily Thomas v. Union of India [2013]
Convicted MPs and MLAs are immediately disqualified from holding office; section 8(4) providing a 3-month appeal period was struck down.
PUCL v. UOI [2013]
Introduced the NOTA (None of the Above) option in EVMs.
Public Interest Foundation v. UOI [2014]
Directed subordinate courts to decide cases involving legislators within a year or explain delays.
Public Interest Foundation v. UOI (2018)
Recommended mandatory revocation of political party membership for individuals with heinous charges.
Rambabu Singh Thakur v. Sunil Arora [2020]
Criticized criminalization of politics; mandated detailed publication of candidate criminal records and reasons for their selection.
Brajesh Singh v Sunil Arora [2021]
Directed publication of criminal antecedents on party websites and in a mobile app; ECI to monitor compliance and report non-compliance.
Prakash Singh v. Union of India
Issued directives for police reforms including fixed tenures for DGPs, separation of investigation and law & order functions, and establishment of State Police Complaints Authority.
Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh
Directed installation of CCTV cameras in police stations and central agencies, with specific requirements for recording and preservation of footage.
Prakash Kadam v Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta
Fake encounters are treated as “rarest of rare cases,” warranting the death sentence for the policeman involved. They are considered cold-blooded murders by those meant to uphold the law.
Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand
Extrajudicial killings are illegal under the criminal justice system and equated to state-sponsored terrorism.
PUCL v. State of Maharashtra
Encounter philosophy affects the credibility of the rule of law and criminal justice. The Court issued 16 guidelines for a standardized and independent investigation process.
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy
Prisoners, whether convicts, undertrials, or detenus, are entitled to all fundamental rights until their liberty is constitutionally curtailed.
Ramamurthy vs. State of Karnataka
Directions were laid to create a unified national framework on prison laws and a draft model prison manual. A committee was set up in the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D).
Joginder Kumar v. State of UP
Arrests cannot be made on mere allegations or suspicion. Several directives were issued regarding the arrest process, including informing friends or relatives.
Ramamurthy vs. State of Karnataka
Identified nine issues concerning prisons, including overcrowding and torture. Methods of investigation involving torture violate fundamental rights under Article 21.
D.K Basu v. State of West Bengal
Specific guidelines were laid down for making arrests, including visible identification of police, recording all details in a register, and ensuring medical examination of arrestees.
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar
First reported PIL in India. The Court held that speedy trial is a fundamental right and that the State must ensure free legal aid and a speedy trial.
M.C Mehta v. Kamal Nath
Supreme Court applied the principle of exemplary damages and held that polluters must pay for the damages. The Court observed the Polluter Pays Principle and Public Trust Doctrine.
M.C Mehta v. Union of India [Oleum Gas Leak]
Supreme Court established the principle of absolute liability, holding companies engaged in hazardous activities liable to compensate all affected by accidents.
M.C Mehta v. Union of India [Ganga Pollution]
Directed leather industries in Kanpur to stop releasing toxic waste into the Ganga River until treatment plants were installed. Ordered the installation of water treatment plants in industries.
Arjun Gopal v. Union of India
Permitted only “low-emission” or “green” firecrackers to balance the livelihood of manufacturers with the health of citizens. High-emission firecrackers were banned.
M.C Mehta v. Union of India
Issued directions to address severe air pollution in Delhi-NCR. Asked why State Governments and those burning stubble should not be held liable for compensation.
MK Ranjith Singh v. Union of India [2021]
Directed the undergrounding of overhead electric lines in Rajasthan and Gujarat to protect the Great Indian Bustard. A High-Level Committee was set up to examine feasibility and implement recommendations.
Shakti Vahini v. Union of India
Directed state governments and police to create mechanisms to eliminate honour killings. Laid down preventive, punitive, and remedial measures for states and police.
Tahseen Poonawalla v. Union of India [2018]
Observed that cow vigilantism leads to anarchy and violence. Laid down measures to prevent and curb such incidents.
National Federation of Societies for Fast Justice v. Union of India [2020]
Directed states to notify the setting up of rural mobile courts (Gram Nyayalayas) under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008. Urged High Courts to speed up consultations with state governments.
Internet and Mobile Association of India v. RBI [2020]
Struck down RBI’s ban on virtual currencies trading, ruling that restrictions imposed by RBI were unfair and declared them unviable.
Kush Kalra v. Union of India [2020]
Held that neither State Government nor UT could paste posters outside COVID-19 positive persons’ residences. Such actions were deemed counterproductive and stigmatizing.
Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab [2021]
Emphasized that societal interest must be considered in NDPS Act sentencing. Those dealing in narcotics are seen as a societal hazard due to the detrimental impact on vulnerable individuals.
Union of India v. Rajendra Shah [2021]
Upheld Gujarat High Court’s judgment striking down provisions of the 97th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2011 related to co-operative societies. The Amendment required ratification by state legislatures, which was not done. Provisions related to multi-state co-operative societies were upheld.
Madras Bar Association v. Union of India [2021]
Set aside provisions in Tribunals Reforms Ordinance 2021 fixing tribunal members’ terms to 4 years, ruling it violated earlier judgments requiring a 5-year term.
In Re Alarming News Report About Kanwar Yatra in UP [2021]
Directed Kerala to adhere to Article 21 read with Article 144, and stated pressure groups should not interfere with fundamental rights, especially during a pandemic.
State of Kerala v. K. Ajith [2021]
Stated that privileges and immunities of elected members are meant to aid their function, not to exempt them from general laws, including criminal law.
In Re Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic [2021]
Held that relying exclusively on digital portals for vaccination is problematic due to the digital divide. Platforms like CoWIN should be available in regional languages to increase accessibility.
In Re Contagion of COVID Virus in Children Protection Homes [2021]
No adoption of affected children should be permitted contrary to JJ Act, 2015. Adoption invitations without CARA involvement are not allowed.
Reepak Kansal v. Union of India [2021]
Directed NDMA to recommend minimum relief and ex-gratia assistance for families of COVID-19 victims.
Attorney General for India v. Satish and another [2021]
Held that interpreting “touch” or “physical contact” in POCSO Act as “skin to skin contact” is narrow. The main ingredient of sexual assault is “sexual intent,” not mere physical contact.
Somesh Chaurasia v. State of M.P [2021]
Highlighted the importance of an independent judiciary, especially at the district level. Noted issues such as lack of infrastructure and inadequate protection for judges.
Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India [2021]
Observed that the right not to be deported is ancillary to the right to reside or settle in India. Clarified that Rohingyas in Jammu cannot be deported without following prescribed procedures.
Rajeev Suri v. DDA [2021]
Upheld the Central Vista project and the construction of a new Parliament in Lutyen’s Delhi. Stated that the Court cannot govern or oversee such projects, as it lacks the expertise for governance.
Judgement
Details
Supreme Court Ruling on Election Commission Appointments
Appointments of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners must be made by the President based on the advice of a Committee consisting of the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition of the Lok Sabha, and Chief Justice of India (CJI).
Government of NCT of Delhi vs Union of India, 2023
National Capital Territory of Delhi has the authority to legislate and execute administrative services within Delhi, except for matters of public order, police, and land. The Lieutenant Governor must follow Delhi government decisions concerning services, except in cases of public order, police, and land.
Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal
The Court directed rehabilitation measures for sex workers, including ensuring equal protection under the law and providing facilities for survivors of sexual assault. The Court used its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
Animal Welfare Board of India And Ors. v. UoI
Upheld the constitutionality of the practice of Jallikattu. The Court validated amendments made by Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Maharashtra to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
