SI. No.

Case Name and Year

Significance
1. Romesh Thappar Romesh Thappar case upheld the freedom of speech
VS and expression of the citizens.
State of Madras It held that liberty of the press is an essential part of
(1950) the right to freedom of speech and expression.
The judgment was quoted again and again by the

Supreme Court, including in the Shreya Singhal

case, in which it set aside the Section 66A of the
Information Technology Act.
2. State of Madras Champakam Dorairajan caseis one of thefirst cases
VS that dealt with the question of reservation in

Smt. Champakam admission to the educational institutions.

Dorairajan (1951) The case decided the question ofsupremacy between
the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles
of State Policy.
3 K. M. Nanavati K. M. Nanavati case was one of the last cases to be
VS heard as a jury trial in India.
State of Maharashtra
(1959)
4. The Berubari Union Berubari Union case held that the preamble is not a
VS part of the Constitution.
Unknown (1960) It held that a cession of a part of the territory of India
can be made only by an amendment under Article 368.
5. LC.Golaknath and IC. Golaknath case held that Parliament cannot
Others amend Fundamental Rights.
VS The judgment provided for the "Prospective
State of Punjab and Overruling of the law".
Another (1967)
6. Keshavananda Bharati | The Keshavananda Bharati case deduced the "Doctrine
Sripadagalvaru of Basic Structure".
State
VS of Kerala (1973) It was heldPrinciple
Directive that the of
laws enacted
State Policytounder
give effect to the
Part IV are

open to judicial review.

The laws included in the ninth schedule can be ch:llenged
in the court of law on the ground that they abrogate the
basic elements of the Constitutional structure.
The judgment was quoted again and again by the
Supreme Court in various judgments like in three
judges case.
 ADM Jabalpur case dealt with the
ADM Jabalpur Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus ower of the
VS
Legal experts consider ADM Jabalo High
Shivkant Shukla
(1976)
an unpopular judgment, but it is still
There has been
udgment
as a good law.
rable
introspection by former judg judicial
and admission
ADM Jabalpur was wrongly decided, es that
The Supreme Court in
Remdeo Chauhan co.
(2010) officially admitted its mistake in case
Jabalpur judgment. ADM
8 Maneka Gandhi Maneka Gandhi case establishe the interrelati
Vs between Article 14 and Article 19 nship
Union of India (1978) It expanded the scope of Article 21 ofthe Constiw
9. Bachan Singh Bachan Singh case evolved the doctrine of "rarest of
"rare
Vs rare case" for awarding the death
penalty.
State of Punjab (1980)
10. Minerva Mills Ltd Minerva Mills held that the
case
harmony and balance
vs between fundametal rights and directive
Union of India (1980) principles
is an essential feature of the basic structure of the
Constitution.
It restored the power of court to review
amendment to the Constitution. any
11. Mohd. Ahmad Khan Shah Bano judgment
VS upheld the right of divorced
Muslim women to sufficient means
Shah Bano Begum and | themselves. It put
to
maintain
Others (1985) make
an
obligation on Muslim men to
provision for or to
provide maintenance to the
divorced wife.
The case also dwelt on the need
Uniform Civil Code
to
implement the
12. Dr. D. C. Wadhwa and The D. C. Wadhwa
judgment put a check on the
Others process of
VS re-promulgation of ordinances. By doing
So, the court
State of Bihar and upheld the balance between executve
and legislature.
Others (1986)
13.
M. C. Mehta M. C. Mehta
VS case changed the scope of Environmen
Union of India and Lawin India
For the first time, an
Others (1986) industry was held respoD ible
for
accident and forced to
an
14. Mohini Jain In Mohini pay compensatl
VS Jain case
State of Karnataka
to
Education' is SupremeCourt held that the RIg
concomitant too the fundamenta
(1989) rights enshrined under
Right to Education flows of the Constituu
The art III
ight to
life. directly from i"
The Parliament in 2002
(Eighty-sixth passed the Constitution
Article 21A Amendment)
added

ACt of
to the
Constitution
2004. ressly
and expr
recognized 'Right to Education' Tental,

right in the Constitution. as a

funda
 15 Indira Sawhney and Indira Sawhney case upheld the constitutional validity
Others of the Office Memorandum that provided
27%
VS
reservation to the Backward classes.
Union of India (1992) | It held that the reservations should not exceed s0%,
and the reservation in promotion is constitutionally
impermissible
16. S. R. Bommai S. R. Bommai case is related to the proclamation of
VS

Union of India (1994)

emergency under Article 356 of the Constitution. The
case also dealt with the power ofthe President to dissolve
State Legislative Assemblies, and the issues relating to
federalism and secularism as a part of the basic structure.
It put an end to the arbitrary dismissal of State
governments under Article 356.
It was also held that the proclamation under Article
356() is not immune from judicial review.
17. Vishakha and Others Vishakha case is one of the first instances, where
vs judiciary tried to fill the' vacuum left by the legislature
State of Rajasthan and executive
(1997) It dealt with the issue of Sexual Harassment at the
workplace.
The Supreme Court laid out Vishaka guidelines to curb
Sexual Harassment of women at the workplace. Building
on these guidelines, the Parliament passed the Sexual
Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act, 2013 that seeks to safeguard women
from harassment at their place of work.
18 |Vineet Narain and Vineet Narain case laid out several steps to curb
Others political influence in the functioning of the CBL
VS It also laid out similar guidance for the Enforcement
Union of India (1997) | Directorate.
In issuing such guidelines, the Supreme Court the
Supreme Court referred its precedent in the Vishaka
case.

19. Three Judges Cases The Collegium system was evolved by the Supreme
(1981, 1993, 1998) Court through three different judgments. They are:
and ochers (1981)
S.P. Gupta President of India
vs
Advocate on Record Association vs Union of
India (1993)
Special Reference case of 1998
These are important judgments in preserving the|
Judicial independence, which is one of the basic
features of the constitution as evolved in the
Keshavananda Bharati case.
20. Prakash Singh and Prakash Singh judgment issued seven binding
Others directions on police reforms.
vs The Supreme Court recalled its observation in the Vineet
Union of India and Narain case regarding the need for police reforms.
Others (2006)
 dealt with a challenge:
21 M. Nagaraj and Others M. Nagaraj case o constitut
amendments aimed at nullifying the
Vs impac of
Union of India (2006) Sawhney judgments
of 1992.
Indir
The judgment upheld the essence of th
the Indira
Sawhney judgment. ever, it provided
to states to make

of promotions.
a reservation for
SC/ST in a fleximatter
bility
The Supreme Court reiterated that the
ceiling limit of
S0%, the concept of creamy layer and the co
reasons, namely, backwardness, the inadeq ng
representation and overall administrative ef acy of
Regarding the issue related to the 'extent of reservars iency
the Court said that the State will have to show in ex
case the existence otthecompelling reasons
22 Lily Thomas Lily Thomas judgment was aimed at
freeing the
VS political setup from the criminal elements.
Union of India and The Supreme Court held subsection (4) of Section R
Others (2013) of the Representation of Peoples Act is ultra vires the
Constitution.
23 T.S. R.Subramanian T. S. R. Subramanian case aimed at
professionalizing the
and Others Bureaucracy, promote efficiency and good governance.
vs Taking a cue from the Vishaka case, Prakash Singh
Union of India and case and Vineet Narain case it issued directions
Others (2013) to the government to make the
bureaucracy free
from unnecessary political interference, provide
them security of tenure, increase the bureaucratic
efficiency and thus to achieve good governance.
It also sought to fix the accountability for any
action
taken,by requiringthatthe orders needto beinwriting
24 National Legal National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) case
Services Authority recognized the Hijras/Eunuchs as 'third gender
VS It tried to address the grievances of the members
Union of lndia (2014)
|of Transgender Community in India, and extenr
all the benefits of educationally
them
backward classes.
socially and

25. Shreya Singhal Shreya Singhal case decided the questions related
vs the fundamental right of free peech and expression
Union of India (2015)
| guaranteed by Article 19(1Xa) of the Constitution of India. |
Supreme Court in Romesh Thappar case stated
that freedom of speech lay at the foundation of au
democratic organizations.
But, Section 66A the
of the IT Act 2000 authorizeu k
ech
imposition of restrictions on the 'freedom of
and expression' in language wide enough to cov
limits
restrictions both within and without the
constitutionally permissible legislativedctionis
tion.
of
Therefore, the- Court held that the Section
unconstitutional.
26. Shayara Bano Shayara Bano judgment set aside the practice of talaq
Vs
e-bidat, which allowed Muslim men to divorce their
Union of India and wives instantaneously and irrevocably.
Others (2016) Along with Shah Bano case, it is one of the landmark
judgments in protecting the rights of Muslim women
inIndia.
27. Justice K. S.
Puttaswamy case dealt with the question that whether
Puttaswamy (Retd) privacy is a constitutionally protected value under
and Another the Indian Constitution.
vs It held that 'right to privacy' emerges primarily from
Union of India and the guarantee of life and personal liberty in Article 21
Others (2017) of the Constitution.
By holding that 'Right to Privacy' as a furndamental
right, the court overruled its earlier judgments in
| M. P. Sharma case and Kharak Singh case.
The Supreme Court relied on this ruling to declare Section
377 of IPC unconstitutional in Navtej Singh Jjohar case,
decriminalize adultery in Joseph Shine case and in Indian
Young Lauwyers Association case which dealt with the|
entry ofwomen into Sabarimalatemple in Kerala
28. IndianYoung Lawyers | Indian Young Lawyers Association case allowed the
Association entry of women aged between 10 and so to the
VS Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
the State of Kerala It held that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa are just Hindus
(2018) and do not constitute a separate religious denomination.
|The exclusionary practice followed at the Sabarimala
temple cannot be treated as an essential practice.
It upheld the women's right to profess practice and
propagate a religion
The judgment reaffirms the Constitution's
transformative character and derives strength from
the centrality it accords to fundamental rights.
While upholding the rights of women, the court also
referred to Puttaswamy judgment.
29. Joseph Shine Joseph Shine case struck down the Section 497 of the
vs Indian Penal Code which criminalized adultery.
Union of India (2018) It expanded the horizons of individual liberty and
gender parity.
The court referred to Puttaswamy judgment in
decriminalizing adultery.
30. Navtej Singh Johar Navtej Singh Johar case partially struck down Section
and Ochers 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
vs It upheld the right of LGBT community to have
Union of India (2018) | intimate relations with people of their choice, their
inherent right to privacy and dignity and the freedom
to live without fear.
It corrected the judicial error committed by a two
member Bench in Suresh Kumar Koushal (2013).
The court referred to the Puttaswamy
judgment
extensively instriking down Section 377.