Important Cases:- Ritik Shalya
1. Re Berubari Case:- The Preamble is not a part of the Constitution.
2. Shankari Prasad Deo v. Union of India:- Parliament can amend any part of
the Constitution including Fundamental Rights under Article 368. Also the
validity of first constitutional amendment was challenged in this case.
3. I C Golaknath v. State of Punjab:- SC held that Parliament has no power to
amend the Fundamental Rights of citizens.
4. Keshavananda Bharti v. UOI:- Parliament has power to amend any part of
the constitution including fundamental rights but it must not violate the basic
structure of Constitution. Objectives specified in Preamble, judicial review,
free and fair election are a part of basic structure.
5. Indira Sawhney v. UOI (Mandal Commission Case):- Concept of creamy
layer for OBC category was first introduced in this case. Right to reservation
in central government jobs was also granted in this case.
6. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain:- 39th Constitutional amendment was declared
null and void by the Allahabad High Court. Free and fair election is a part of
basic structure of Constitution. Led to emergency in India (1975-77).
7. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (Habeus Corpus Case):- Fundamentals
rights suspended during the time of emergency is not unconstitutional. Only
dissenter Justice HR Khanna resigned after this case when he was
superseded by Justice HN Beg for the post of CJI.
8. S.R Bommai v. UOI:- Secularism is a basic feature of Constitution. If
President dissolves any state assembly under Article 356, it is subjected to
judicial review. First state emergency was imposed in the state of Punjab in
1951.
9. Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI:- Decriminalization of section 377 IPC.
10.Naz Foundation v. NCT of Delhi:- Case of sec 377 in Delhi HC.
11.Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabrimala Case):-
Allowed entry of women in Sabrimala Temple. Ban was declared the
violation of fundamental rights of women. Dissenting opinion in this case
was given by the only women judge in the bench Justice Indu Malhotra. The
ratio was 4:1.
12.Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan:- SC laid down some guidelines for the
sexual harassment of women at work places and said that these guidelines
will prevail until Parliament enacts any law in this matter. This case was
happened in 1997 and India finally enacted its law on prevention of sexual
harassment against female employees at the workplace. The Sexual
Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act, 2013 has been made effective on 23 rd April 2013 by way of
publication in the Gazette of India.
13.Chandrima Das v. Chairman of Railway Board:-
14.Common Cause v. UOI:- Right to die with dignity is a fundamental right.
15.Manohar lal Sharma v. Narendra Damodardas Modi:- Petition seeking probe
in Rafael deal dismissed.
16.Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M and Ors.:- Right to change faith is a
fundamental right of choice.
17.Arjun Gopal and Ors. v. UOI:- Complete ban on firecrackers refused, online
sale banned, duration of bursting fire crackers fixed.
18.Tehseen S. Poonawala v. UOI:- Petition seeking probe into the death of
Justice Loya dismissed.
19.Dr. Subhash Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra:- SC issues direction to
prevent misuse of SC/ST Act. Government servant can’t be arrested without
prior sanctions.
20.Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UOI:- Can’t restrict MPs and MLAs from
practicing law.
21.Public Interest Founation v. UOI:- Candidates cannot be disqualified on
framing of charges in criminal cases.
22.Bar Council of India v. A.K Balaji and Ors.:- Foreign law firms cannot set
up office in India. Foreign lawyers can advise clients on fly in and fly out
basis.
23.Shayra Bano v. UOI:- Triple Talaq was declared unconstitutional and later
criminalized by the Parliament. Also it was declared that this is not an
essential religious practice in Muslim law.
24.Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum:- Maintenance was granted to a
Muslim Women, despite of the Muslim Personal Laws.
25.Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India:- Live streaming of court
proceedings in larger public interest is allowed.
26.Lok Prahari v. State of UP:- Ex CMs not entitled to government bunglows.
27.K.M Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra:- This was last case of jury trial in
India. Original decision was reversed by Bombay HC.
28.Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka:- Right to education is an integral part of
Article 21.
29.Supreme Court Advocates on record v. UOI:- Struck down NJAC Act and
99th constitutional amendment as unconstitutional and void.
30.National Legal Service Authority v. UOI:- The SC upheld transgender rights
and declared transgender as third gender.
31.Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab:- Right to Life does not include Right to Die.
Also abetment of suicide is a punishable offence.
32.Maneka Gandhi v. UOI:- The court held that right to travel and go outside
the country is included in the right to personal liberty guaranteed under
Article 21.
33.Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar:- Right to speedy
trial is a fundamental right and is enshrined under Article 21.
Three Judges Cases
The collegium system has its genesis in a series of three judgments that are now
together clubbed as “Three Judges Cases.”
1. S.P Gupta v. UOI (first judges case):- The Court held that there are only
two grounds on the basis of which the Central Government’s decision
regarding appointment and transfer of judges can be challenged: (1) there
was no full and effective consultation between the Central Government
and the appropriate authorities, and (2) the decision was based on
irrelevant grounds. The correspondence in question would be relevant on
account of both these grounds, which necessitates its disclosure. The
Court held that the final say in matters of appointment of judges would
be that of a President.
2. Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. UOI:- It was
concluded that the role of Chief Justice of India in appointing Supreme
Court Judges is unique, singular and primal – but participatory vis-à-vis
the Executive on a level of togetherness and mutuality, and neither he nor
the Executive can push through an appointment in derogation of the
wishes of the other. The role of the CJI and CJ of the High Court in the
matter of appointment of Judges of the HC is relative to the extent that
should the CJI be in disagreement with the proposal, the Executive
cannot prefer the views of the CJ of the HC in making the appointment
over those of the CJI. In the matter of transfer of HC Judges from one
court to another, the role of CJI – again is primal, while that of the HC CJ
is minimal. The collegium system was introduced in appointment of
judges, which includes CJI + 2 senior most judges of SC.
3. In Re Special Reference 1 of 1998 (Third Judges Case):- It was held that
the collegium system, created in the Second Judges Case, would continue
to be the sole body in matters of appointment of judges. However, the
size of the collegium was increased from CJI + 2 judges to CJI + 4
judges.
