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.