`Constitution

Article 12 (definition of state)

 R.c jain v. uoi (delhi development authority is state)
Statutory bodies
 Sukdev v. bhagath ram (lic, ongc, stare finance corp formed under a legislation, so
state)
 Rajastan state electricity board v. mohan lal (it’s a other authority)
 Ramana d setti v. international airport authority (IAA act, so state)
 Som prakash v. UOI (Bharath petroleum co is state)
 Up warehousing corp v. vijay nargan (is a state under OA)
Non statutory bodies
 Ajya hassa v. althid mujid (engineering clg funded by govt)
 B. s minhas v. Indian statistical institute (governed by act)
 Pk Ramachandra iyer v. UOI (Indian council for agriculture research is funded by govt)
 Takeraj vasandhi v. uoi ( registered society constitution and parliamentary affairs are
not funded by govt, not state)
 Konaseema co-operative central bank v. n.s sitharamaraju (not a state as it is not
funded by govt)
 A. r. anthula v. r. s. nayak (judiciary is state, state cannot do anything agiant
fundamental rights)

Article 13 (what is law)

Judicial review
 Marbury v. Madison (article 32, 226 , 136, judicial review)
 State of madras v. b. g. rao (Indian constitution contain certain express provisions for
judicial review)
 A. k. Gopalan v. st of madras (judicial review provisions were given in the Indian
constistution from the beginning it self)
 Indira gandhi v. rajanarayan (is basic structure of consti)
 L. Chandra Kumar v. uoi (under 226 hc had power)
Doctrine of severability
 A. k. Gopalan v. st of madras (
 Ramesh v. st of madras (cant separate 2, whole is void)
 R. N. B. C v. UOI (can separate then only that part is void)
Doctrine of eclipse
 Bhikaji v. state of mp (motor vehicles amendment act est 1947, post constitution law
are void)
 Deepchand v. st of up (
 Mahendra lal jain v. st of up (post consti law, after verification, held void, cant be used
anymore)
 St of GJ v. ambica mills (Bombay st labour welfare act , 1953)
Doctrine of waiver
 Behashar v. income ta commissioner (no individual cant wave his fundamental ri8s)
 Muttaya v. income tax commissioner (same as above)
 Shankari prasad v. UOI (parliament had power to amend FR)

1
  Surgen singh v. st of rJ (17th amendment, constistutinal ammendments can be
reviewed, they are not included art 13(2))
 Golak nath v. st of Punjab (consti is sacred doc, 17th amendment)
 Kheshawnanda Bharathi v. st of KL (surgen singh overruled)*

Article 14 (equality)
 P samba murthi v. st of ap (article 371 as unconstitutional)
 Adm jabal pur v. sivakanth sukla (there is no locus standi under section 16 of MISA,
44th amendment is void)
Exceptions Equal protection
 Sanjeev manufacturing co. v. Bharath cooking (when article 31(1) come in art 14 goes
out)
Application of article 14
 Basana rao v. land equisation officer (if a relief is given to a person in a case by mistake,
same cant be given in another case)
 Legal authority of india v. UOI (hizras are apart from binary gender)
 Ramakrishna dalja v. justice Tendulkar (def of class, even a single can be class himself)
Classifaction(classes)
 E. p. rayyapa v. st of tn (equality is dynamic concept)
 Manake Gandhi v. UOI (arbitrariness is against art 14)
 Ramana d setti v. international airport authority (IAA act, so state)
 Joshi v. madya Bharath (foreign residents don’t need to pay)
 Madlew limaye v. superindent of tihar jail delhi (all prisnors are equal)
 D. s. nakarav. Uoi (pension rules, differ by day of retirement)
 East India tobacco company v. st of ap (impose more tax on virginia tobacco, than
country tobacco)
 Western theater case (tax based on location of theater)
 K. t. mupil nair v. st of KL (land tax, rs2 for accur, not a good law)
 Babu lal v. collector of customs (sea customs act, section 178(a))
 Ajith bhasha v. uoi (every university is a class by itself, can make special provisions)
 P. v. Sastry v.UOI (use of Indian airforce aircraft by president is valid)
 Air india v. nardik (rule 46, 47 of air india service rule book, retirement of airhostess
by 35, not valid)
 Navajyothi co operative gropu housing society v. uoi (registration cooperative under
head, in particular order, that changed suddenly, that is not valid)
 FCI v. kamadenu cattle field india (called for tender, then after changed, that is valid)
 Madras wine merchant v. st of T.n (valid condition)
 A. k. krappak v.UOI (judge should not be biased)
 Central water board v. brozonath (permeant employ, can be terminated, before
3mohts notice not valid)
 Delhi road transport authority v. its work man (same as above, 1 month)

2
Article 15 (no discrimination)
 Indrasahani v. uoi (reservation for SC, ST must be max of 50%)
 A parakkapan v. St of Tn (if court gives reservation in one case it doesn’t mean it was
given in all cases)
 St of ap v. U. s. v. balaram (backward class means not just backward caste, it is socially
and educationally backward)
 K. s. jaisree v. st of kl (if income is more than 10k then there is no reservation)
 St of up v. Pradeep tendam (people of rural area, Uttarakhand, hilly areas, sc held 1st
one is invalid and 2 and 3 can get reservations)
 Guntur medical clg v. mohan rao (a person who is sc turns into Christian for the seat,
this was challenged, SC held in favour of the boy)
 Dr neelima v. dean ap agricultural university (reddy married SC, claimed reservation,
not allowed)
 Viswanath v. st of tn (can person of AP claim reservation of ST in TN, court held no)
 Preethi sagar v. st of mp (it is based on merit not on quota when it comes to medical
and engineering seats)
Article 15(5)
 St of mp v. niveditha jain (total relaxation of min qualifying marks is not against this
article)
 PMA poi v. st of kt (
 Islamic academic v. st of kt (held that the state can fix quota for admission to these
educational institutions but it cant fix fee and also admissions can be done on the basis
of common admission test and on basis of merit)
 P. A. Inamdar v. st of mh (above decision overruled, quota for education in private
educational institutions, however minor educational institutions were excepted)

Article 16 (employment and appointment)

Article 16(2)
 Pandu ranjarao v. st of ap public service commission (relating to judges, adm
challenged)
 S. b. kohli v. UOI (a orthopedist must minimum have a PG, education can be treated
as a basic thing for employment)
 C. B. mutama v. uoi (permission for marriage is compulsory for IFS officer, challenged,
court held that rule is not valid)
 Madam mohan v. st of rj (change in selection process after the notification an
advertisement is issued is not valid under 16(2))
 Jagadesh ch patnayak v. st of or (job given on 1st April and promotion after 6months,
he claimed the benefit for last 6months, held in favor of Govt)
 U. p. Ahuja v. st of pb (chief excutive Punjab cotton and spinning mills ltd, probation)
 Rajeswari devi v, st of bh (pension and retirement benefits, can 2nd wife claim that,
court held no but her children can claim)
 A manju bashin v. ap waver co-operatives ltd (temporary govt jobs based on contract
or daily wages, they can be made perminant later, this is valid)
 General manager southern railway v. ranga chari (this article includes, promotion
termination and every thing related to job, court held that viva voce test is not
ultimate to get a job)

3
  Praveen singh v. st of pb (400m written, 50m viva, 150 members called for viva, a
person who got good marks in written test didn’t get job, this was challenged, held
should give the job)
 K. h. Siraj v. hc of kl (minimum marks in interview for adm post, challenged, court held
in favor of kl hc)
 Prabharthi v. st of up (equal pay for equal work)
 Dasarada ramarao v. st (appoint ment of village munsif under section 16(4) of madras
act requires for elect fro, the cast holder of the past)
Article 16(3)
 A. v. s. Narsimha rao v. st of ap (no one will be disqualified as he is not a residence of
particular state with an exception to 7 sisters)
Article 16(4)
 Balaji case (50% max exception for 7 sisters, backward class not backward caste)
 St of ap v. balaram (caste it self cant be said as base for backwardness, class
determined by income, occupation and place of habitation)
Carry forward rule
 Devadasan v. UOI (each year recruitment must be considered while giving
reservations, of the class of the individual developed reservation must be decreased
less than 50%)
 J. n. Mishra v. st of bh (not only seniority but also merit should be considered)
 St of kl v. N. m. Thomas (clearing department test, sc and st given 4 years and where
0c given 2, this was challenged, held reasonable)
 A. b. s. k. sung v. uoi (railway board circular given special status to sc and st,
challenged, held valid)
 Vasanth Kumar v. st of kt (guide lines on reservation, reservation for 15years upto
2kAD, economic backwardness must be considered)
 K. s. jaisree v. st of kl (parents income 10k , reservation given)
 Indrasahani v. uoi (mandal commission was established and given a list of 3043 BC,
and suggested 27% reservation, this was challenged, economic basis, 16(1) make
intense clarification of reservation, 16(4) is wider than 15(4), creamy layer no
reservation, 16(4) permits classify bc to more bc as well, not only economic, farflung
areas can be given more than 50% reservation, reservation can be made by executive
order, no reservations in promotions, permanent statutory body, disputes to sc only,
77th amendment 16(4)a added, 16(4)b 2000 amendment no reservation of 50% in
backlog vacancies)
 M. nagaraju v. uoi (81st, 82nd, 83rd amendments challenged, sc held constitutional)
 Ashok Kumar Thakur v. st of bh (ias and ips children had no reservation)
 Chethar singh v. st of rj (obc had no reservation as SC ST)

Article 17 (untouchability)
 St of kt v. appubalu ingale (untouchability is a punishable offence)
 Peoples union of democratic rights v. uoi (asiac games case, protection of labour,
labour are covered under this)

Article 18 (abolishes of titles)

 Balaji raghavam v. UOI (academic distictions, military services are excepted)

4
Article 19 (freedom)
Article 19(1)(a) (of speech and expression)
 Ramesh thaper v. st of tn (cross roads magazine banned, freedom of speech includes
freedom of press, expreesion, publish, comment, etc)
 R. c. copper v. uoi (a law which violates the personal liberty of a individual will be
covered under article 21 19 and 14)
 Bennat coalman v. uoi (restricting no of pages on newspaper is restriction to freedom
of speech and expression, restricts space for ads)
 Ranjith Kumar udeshi v. st of Bombay (lady charter book banned)
 LIC v. manubhaishan (consumer education and research, if raced on LIC policy holders
a shocking story, lines were published by a person, held he should not do like that)
 Prabhu dutt v. UOI (tihar jail interview rejected, challenged, held in favour of prabhu
datt)
 Indian express newspapers v. UOI (buildings case, working journalist case, taxation
case)
 Communist party of India v Bharath Kumar and others (national anthem case, singing
such songs is an offence according to their religion, and court allowed them)
 Pucl v. UOI (telephone tapping case, u/s 5 of Indian telegraphic act, 1855, during the
public emergency and only by home secretary, this was allowed during public
emergency and with permission of authorities)
 Secretary general SCI v. subhash chadra Agarwal (the details of assets of sc judges
cannot be given)
 R. rajgopal v. st of tn (auto sankar biography, jail didn’t allow to publish, challenged,
held in favor of rajgopal)
 K. abbas v. UOI (flim censorship is valid, tale of 4 cities certified ‘a’ according to
cinematography act, 1952)
Article 19(1)(b) (of peaceful assembly)
 Dassappa v. deputy adal commission of police (u/s 144 crpc, a magistrate can give
orders for curfew, challenged, held valid)
Article 19(1)(c) (form association)
 Bamayathi v. uoi (hindu sahitya sandlam act, 1962)
 Ok. N. nair v. uoi (servants cant form associations)
 Delhi police non karmachar v. UOI (recognition of a union is not FR)
Article 19(1)(d) (of movement)
 N. b. kheu v. st of delhi (east Punjab safety, 1949)
 Ajay khannu v. UOI (498(a) of ap MV act helmet is compulsory, challenged, held valid)
 St of UP v. Kausalya (prostitute living in a house in city, magistrate asked her to live in
the outskirts, challenged, held valid)
 Rajnish kappor v. uoi (helmet again challenged)
Article 19(1)(e) (reside and settle)
 St of up v. Kausalya (same as above)
 Imbrahim wazir v. st of Bombay (Indian came back to india, stopped by Bombay airport
from entering, as he missed some documents, challenged , sc allowed him to India)
 St of mp v. Bharath singh (section 3 which authorizes govt to ask a person to movie
from one place, party challenged this, sc held in favor of party)

5
 Article 19(1)(g) (of profession and business)
 Eficell warehousing v. uoi (co. of export garmets, decided to close as they cant pay
wages, govt asked them to continue, this was challenged, held in favour of company)
 P. a. Inamdar v. st of mh (educational institution for charity or income being a
occupation is guarented under this article, it should be without mal administration)
 Dr. chuhani v. bar council of mh and gao (be a doctor or lawyer, not both)
 Sukumar mukarji v. st of wb (sec 9 of wb st health service acr, 1980 challenged, held
valid)
 MRE ltd v. st of kl (kl industrial establishment act, 1990, 4 paid holidays were added,
industries challedged the same, held in favor of govt of KL)
 Manohar lal v. st of pb (pb trade employment act, 1940, 1day holiday in a week, a
shop owner opened on the day of holiday, challenged, held in favor of state)

Article 20
Article 20(1) (expost facto laws)
 Fareed luba v, nilam baram (non payment of panchayat tax is not an offence on the
day if full due, the defendant convicted under another law which was subsequently
passed)
 Mohan lal v. st of rj (ganga 10kgs, crime committed on 13th nov, ndps came on 14th
nov, still liable)
 Kedarnath v. st of wb (crime committed in 1947, where he is given imprisonment,
where in 1949 amendment fine was included, sc held he is not liable for fine)
 T baras v. ah hoe (16th aug 1975, life imprisonment, 1st April 1976, 3years, he claimed
for lesser imprisonment, sc allowed)
 Rathanlal v. st of pb (boy of 16yrs, convicted for outraging the modesty of a women
of 6yrs, 6months imprisonment, probation of offenders act, decreased punishment)
Artice 20(2) (double jeo pardy)
 Venkataraman v. uoi (enquiry, job of individual terminated as a result, again he was
trailed under POCA, he challenged the same, sc held he can be trailed)
 Mabul Hussain v. st of Bombay (gold caught in Bombay airport and charged with FERA,
later tried for sea customs act, this was challenged, sc held it is valid)
 A. a. mulla v. st of mh (panchanama it was mentioned that 99 gold and other 9 gold
were taken by officers, they are prosecuted under IPC, FERA, sea customs act, POCA,
held the prosecution is correct)
 Karla veera Raghava rao v. gorrantla venkateswa rao (u/s 138 of NI act, u/s 420 of IPC,
double jeopardy allowed)
 Subha singh v. devendar v. kaur (u/s 364 of IPC for death of deceased doesn’t deprive
the wife of the deceased to claim compensation, a decree of damage is not a
punishmenr and double jeopardy)
Article 20(3) (self incrimination)
 M. p. sharma v. Satish Chandra (it is ri8 to pertaining to a person, who is accused of
an offence. It is a protection against compulsion to be a witnss. It is protection against
such compulsion relating to his giving against himself)
 Nandini sathpathi v, p.l. dhani (if the name of the person is register in the FIR, sc held
that prohibitive scope of article 20(3) goes back to the stage of police interrogation)

6
  Delhi judicial service asso v. st of gj (the expression witness is very wide, it includes
oral documentary and testimonial evidence.)
 St of Bombay v. kathikalu (sc had restricted the interpretation as given by SC In mp
sharma and held that taking of fingerprint and signature from the accused are only for
the purpose of comparison)
 Parshadhi v. st of up (murderer revealed evidence against himself, it can be used a
evidence)
 Mhd dasthagir v. st of madras (money given as bribery through a cover and cover can
be used as an evidence)
 Yusaf ali v. st of mh (a tape evidence which was made without the knowledge of the
accused can be used as a evidence)
 V. s. kotinpillai v. ramakrishnam (there is no need to a accused to give his hair for the
purpose of testimonial compulsion)
 Salue v. st of kt (consent of accused need to be taken, in presence of his lawyer, he
must be informed regarding the emotional and physical changes when the test is
considering the individual. The statement should be recorded by a judicial magistrate,)

Article 21 (right to life)

 Karak singh v. st of up (it is not the animal, it is human, a criminal was acquitted as
there is no evidence, later there was 24hrs check on him, this was challenged, court
held in favor of the criminal as it deprives his right to life)
 Menaka Gandhi v. uoi (passport case)
 Govind v. st of mp (mp police regulation 855 and 856 were challenged that they are
violative of right to privacy under art 21, held they are valid as there should be check)
 Satwan singh v. passport officer (right to travel abroad is FR, passport ceased as he a
person multiple journeys, he challenged the same, held in favor of the person)
 Asiac case (prep for games, labour exploited by giving low wages, sc held min daily
wages must be given)
 Vikram dev singh tomur v. st of of bh (care home patna has no proper facilities, sc held
govt of bh to take care of the institution)
 Jolly George vargis v. bank of kochi (being poor is not a offence, judgement debtor, so
he is sent for imprisonment, sc held to recheck the judgement)
 Olga tellis v. bomaby municipal corp (Bombay pavement dwellers case)
 Sodan singh v. delhi administration (life doesn’t include livelihood)
 D. k. Yadav v. j. n. industries (a person didn’t allowed to sign in register, and he was
removed from the job by the same reason, he challenged the same, sc held in favor of
the person)
 St of mh v. Chandra babu (payment of rs1 as subsistence allowance is invalid and
struck down both provisions of Bombay service rules)
Prisoners’ rights
 Sunil batra (1) v. delhi administration (solitary confinement in iron fetters, he is life
and death convict, he filed a case for ill treatment, sc held In favor of convict)
 Sunil batra (2) v. delhi administration (ill treatment, torture in jail, complaint through
post card, held in favor of convict)
 Hasnara katur v. st of bh (speedy trail is a FR, under trail prisoners can be released)
Right to privacy

7
  St of mh v. madulkar Narayan (prostitute, police officer goes to her house an dasks for
intercourse, he rejects and files case, police officer takes a defense that she is a
prostitute, held prostitute can also have privacy)
 R. rajgopal v. st of tn (auto shanker case)
 Secretary general SCI (sc judge assets case)
 Puttu swami v. UOI (right to privacy is FR)
Right against delayed execution
 T. v. vathiswaran v. st of tn (automatic conversion fo death penality into life
imprisonment if it si delayed for 2yrs)
 Sher singh v. st of pb (same as above)
 Trivehidan v. st of gj (above overruled)
 M.c. Mehta v. uoi (
 Vishaka v. st of rj (working women)
 Subhash Kumar v. st of bh (every should get free polluted free water)
 Paramananda katara v. UOI (medico legal cases)
 Paschim beng katri mazdars v. st of Wb (person not admitted as there no beds in govt,
he will going to private hospital, 25k as bill, he claims govt, sc held liable)
 Channa jagdesh v. st of ap (right to die is invalid)
 Sree pathi maruthi duba v. st of mh (right to die is FR)
 P. ratinam v. UOI (right to dies is FR)
 Gyankuar v.UOI (right to die is not FR, final judgement regarding the issue)

Article 22 (constitutional safeguard for arrested person)

22(1)(2)
 Jogendra v. st of up (police officer should say to the person who is arrested that on
which grounds he was arrested)
 M. h. haskot v. st of mh (free legal aid is FR)
 A. f. mhd rafi v. st of tn (
 Hasinara kathur case (
 CBI v. Anupam Kulkarni (max of 15 days, and he should be produced within 24hrs
before a magistrate)
22(4)(5)(6)
 Lalubai gojibai patel v. UOI (the detenue didn’t know English, so he is supposed to be
communicated the case in the language he know)
 Kubic daruz v. UOI (ground of arrest went in English, acknowledgement was given by
accused in English, later after 2 week he askes for polish language, held not correct)
Right to representation
 Yaman mangi babu singh v, st of Manipur (non supply of copies of judgement, this was
not correct on the part of jail authorities)
 Satyadev prasad v. st of bh (govt should consider the petitioners representation. As
possible delay in considering it becomes invalid)

Article 25 (religious rights)

 National anthems case (3 students)
 Acharya jagadeswarnand avadutha v. CP WB (tandava dance was stopped from doing
by commissioner of WB, challenged, held correct)

8
  S. p. methal v. uoi (aravinda ashram case, this was taken over by govt, they claimed
state os involving in the religious activities, sc held that it is correct as there is
mismanage ment in the institution)

Article 26 (freedom to manage religious institutions)

 Aziz bashav v. UOI (alizer muslim university was established by non muslim, this was
challenged, court held in the favor of non muslim)
 Meera Kishoredev v. st of OR (jaganath swami temple, which taken away by govt,
challenged, held valid)

Article 27 (freedom for tax for promotion of any particular religion)

 Jaganath v, st of or (imposition of fee is valid as it is for maintaining of the
commissioner office)

Article 28 (prohibition of religious instruction in state aided institution)

 Dav college jalander v. st of pb (section 4 of gurunanak university for study research
of gurunanak is in the nature of secular one so it can be)
 Aruna rai v. uoi (Sanskrit is not prohibited, giving instructions in Sanskrit is valid)

Article 32
Habeaus corpus
 Kanu sanjay v. district magistrate darjiling (presence of person at the time of trail is it
necessary, sc held not necessary)
 Shula berse v. st of mh (any one can go for this writ petition)
 Devi v. UOI (post card can be considered as writ petition)
 Madhu baa v. narendra Kumar (can be given to a private individual)
Mandamus
 Uma kanth v. st of bh (jr promoted where sr didn’t, challenged, held invalid)
 M. p. v. mandora (govt servants asked for DA, govt rejected, challenged, held In favor
of govt)
 Prahatus industries v. its working man (mandamus was issued against and award of
arbitration to comply with the public duties)
 St of mp v. dailal (mandamus can be is issued to quash an illegal assessment of tax and
for refund of money)
Quo warrento
 Bema raju v. st of ap (
 Sree Kumar Padma prasad v. uoi (secretary govt of assam acting as a judge of HC of
assam in his absence, this was challenged, sc removed him from the post)
 Rajehs awasti v, nandlal jaswal (the real test is to wheather the person holding the
office is authorized to hold the same as per law, any one can claim the writ)
 R. k. nakula sena v rishin (no writ of quo warranto can be issued against council of
ministers as it lost the majority in the lower house. Under article 164 the choice of
selection of CM is within the ambit of the governor)
 G. d. karkare v, shawanday (issued against advocate general)

9
Certiorari and prohibition
 Menaka Gandhi v. uoi (passport case)
 A.k . kraipak v. uoi (a rule which was made by govt must be following the principals of
natural justice, if it is not, it is void and it can be challenged by the writs)
 Harivishnu v. syed shmed (ignoring certain election rules, which the tribunal is
supposed to follow, resulted declared by that tribunal is invalid)
 Amald v. rana (lack of jurisdiction, 3 members committee is competent authority not
2 member committee)
 News papers ltd v. st industries tribunal (civil court had no jurisdiction on industrial
matters, only industrial tribunal)
 Pratap singh v. st of pb (preparatory leave, leave before retirement, by taking
permission from govt, while he was on leave that was concealed, and a enquiry filed
and his job terminated. This is because he went against the CM of pb, termination
order quashed by SC)
Locus standi
 Sp gupta v. uoi (judges transfer case, it is interest of independent judiciary)
 Mural devara v. uoi (smoking in public places, pil)
 Madhu murthi markha v. uoi (bonded labour)
 Veena sathe v, st of bh (a letter addressed by journalists to releted prisoners who are
unnecessarily detained, unsound prisoners, and sound at some times, they cant be
kept detained for more time)
 D. c. wahba v. st of bh (governor misused a ordinance, that was studied by a political
scientist and he submitted the same to SC, sc held governor Is liable)
Judicial actvisim
 Murli s. deora v. uoi (smoking banned in public places, this was challenged, held it is
correct)
 Suni bhatra v. delhi administration (protection of prisoners’ rights)
 Hasinara takur v. uoi (speedy trail is a FR under 21)
 D. c. wahbah v. st of bh (compensation under article 32)
 Pulshah v. st of bh (35k compensation for unnecessary detention)
 Sebastian m. hunger v. UOI (2 villagers taken by military jawans for enquiry and they
2 missed, writ filed, but found they are dead, military jawans held liable)
 People union for democratic rights v. DCP, delhi (labor for cleaning police station, not
given wage, he claimed, they put him in prison and bet, he stayed back in hosipatal
for 3 days, and filed a writ, granted 75k)
 Bheem singh v. st of JK (mla, 50k)
 Saheli v. DCP (boy of 10yeard killed for OA, police came to their house and misbehaved
with his mother and he shouted at them, they killed him, 75k compensation given and
they become jobless)
 Neelamathi bare v. st of or (21yrs old taken to PS for enquiry of theft, next day found
dead, 1,05,000 as compensation)
 Chala Ramakrishna reddy v. st of ap (prisoner killed by his inmates, sc held police are
liable for compensation)
Judicial restraint
 Madhava rao sindhiya v. UOI (privy purse case, 26th amendment)

10
DPSP 36-51
 Unni Krishna v. st of ap (right to education for 14yrs children, given status as FR)
 Md ali kureshi v. st of gj (cow slaughtering is banned, muslim filed a case, as it infringes
his FR, sc held in favor st of gj)
Social and economic charter
 Sandeep manufactures case (
 Ranbir singh v. uoi (equal pay for equal work)
 St of harayana v. rajpaul singh (aided school teacher also entitled for equal salaries on
par with govt teacher)
Social security charter
 Unni Krishna v. st of ap (ri8 to education is a FR)
 Mh hoskot v. st of mh (free legal aid is FR)
 St of mh v. manu bhai prikaji vashi (aid to law clg)
Community welfare charter
 Sarla mudgal v. UOI (fresh look on article 44, uniform civil system)
 Pragathi vargis v. syri geoge vargis (section 10 of divorce act was struck down)
 Noor saba khatoon v. mhd quasim (125of crpc, muslim wife children whould get
maintenance until the children get their majority)
 Daniel lathif v. UOI (maintainance for children)
Difference between article FR and DPSP
 St of madras v, champakam dorairajan (hindus, muslims, Christians, reservation for
seat in medical an engineering colleges)
 In re education bill (article 143, to what extent govt can restrict on educational
institution)
 Khesavananda Bharathi v. st of kl (42nd amendment, basic structure of consti)
 Mhd anif khureshi v.st of bh (slaughtering of cows on bakrid was not an offence)
 Unni Krishnan v. st of AP (ri8 to education)
 St of Bombay v. F.n. balsara (Bombay prohibition acr was upheld this by taking
advance of art 47)
 Vijay cotton mills v. st of ajmir (minimum wages act, 1948 upheld as minimum wages
is should be like living wages, under art 43)
 Sanjeev coal manufacturing co. ltd. V. Bharath cooking coal (art 31(c) covers all DPSP)
 St of t.n v. abu kavur bhai (nationalization of transportation, tn act talking about this
is valid)
 St of gj v. sirja mothi kureshi jamath kas (Bombay prevention of animals act, gj act of
1994, slautering of cows is wrg, challenged, held correct)
 Mohini jain v. st of kt (compulsory education for children under 14yrs)
 Husinara katur v. st of bh (speedy trail is a FR, DPSP turn into FR)
 M.h. haskot v. st of mh (ri8 to appeal, a person not given the copy of judgement early
so that he cant go for appeal, later sc held that was not correct in part of jail
authorirties)
 Girh kalyan kendra workers union v. UOI (equal pay for equal work, DPSP turns into
FR)
 Taj agriculture university v. rodhod labour (relaxation of eligibility criteria for labour
working more than 1oyrs)

11