Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Hundreds of judgments are handed down every day, but only a few stand out,
such as the Keshavananda Bharati case, Maneka Gandhi case, or Olga Tellis
case, which deal with an individual’s fundamental rights. These are branded as
‘landmark cases’ by virtue of their impact and distinctiveness. Most of these
important cases portray a distinct constitutional perspective in order to qualify
as landmark decisions.
The defendant forged a document indicating that the petitioner was obliged to
be present during the hearings before a Commission of Inquiry.[3]
This momentous decision was handed down on January 25, 1978, and it forever
altered the Indian Constitution. This decision significantly broadened the reach
of Article 21, thereby making India a welfare state, as promised in
the Preamble. The seven-judge panel reached a unanimous conclusion, except
for a few issues where some justices agreed.
The petitioners asserted their right to livelihood as part of their right to life
under Article 32 of the Constitution, which is guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution. The petitioners, including Olga Tellis, argued that the eviction
order was irrational and unjust since it did not provide any alternative housing
facilities for the street residents.
Furthermore, petitioners argued that Sections 312, 313, and 314 of the Bombay
Municipal Corporation Act are unconstitutional because they violate Articles
14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The court opined that the Right to life also encompasses the right to livelihood,
and any deprivation of livelihood or means of subsistence is unconstitutional. It
reflected the humanistic outlook of the judges and the court’s activist role.
While the petition was pending, a leak of oleum gas from one of its units
occurred on the 4th and 6th of December 1985, resulting in the death of an
advocate and affecting the health of others. This occurrence brought to mind
the Bhopal gas tragedy.
The Supreme Court of India issued six reported orders in the Shriram Food and
Fertilizer Industry case, four of which were issued before the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 was passed and the date on which it took effect.
Main Issues
Ramakant Gujjar and his five men gang-raped her in front of her husband in
1992 to exact vengeance. The police department attempted to dissuade her from
pursuing the case on various grounds, but she persisted and filed a complaint
against the accused. She was, however, exposed to extreme treatment by female
police attendants, to the point that her lehenga was demanded from her to get
proof, and she was left with nothing except her husband’s blood-stained dhoti.
The accused was acquitted by the trial court, but she never lost up hope, and
witnessing her resolve, all-female social workers rallied to her side. Under the
name ‘Vishakha’, they all filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India.
The Supreme Court was asked to draft rules for avoiding workplace sexual
harassment.
Main Issues of the Case
Pinki Virani, an activist, and journalist filed a plea before the Supreme Court
under Article 32 of the constitution, claiming that she had no chance of reviving
and improving, and so should be allowed to die passively. This was not
permitted. She remained in this position for 42 years, until she died in 2015.
Main Issues
Is it acceptable to remove life-sustaining systems and methods
from a person who is in a persistent vegetative state (PVS)?
Should a patient’s preferences be honoured if he or she has
previously said that he or she does not want life-sustaining
measures in the event of futile treatment or a PVS?
Is it possible for a person’s family or next of kin to submit a
request to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining systems if the
individual has not made such a request before?
Judgment
The Supreme Court, in consultation with doctors, concluded that her brain was
not dead, and she was able to breathe and feel emotions, while being in a PVS.
It was held to be unjustifiable to take her life against her wishes.
In 2005, Adv. Lily Thomas filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court to
challenge Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, which protects
convicted politicians from any kind of disqualification from contesting elections
due to pending appeals against their conviction in the appellate courts.
Even though the petitioners’ case was initially denied, after nine years of trying,
a Supreme Court bench composed of Justices AK Patnaik and SJ
Mukhopadhyay issued a decision in July 2013.
Main Issues
The first question presented in the case was whether Parliament
had the authority to implement Section 8(4) of the Act.
Second, whether Section 8(4) of the Act violated the provisions of
Indian Constitution and ran contrary to the meaning and goals of
the authors of the Constitution by allowing members of a certain
class to continue to maintain membership while being convicted of
a crime.
Judgment
The ruling said that if any elected or non-elected MPs or MLAs are convicted in
a criminal matter by a trial court, they would be disqualified with immediate
effect, and the saving provision under section 8(4) will not apply. This impacted
approximately 5000 elected members.
The Mumbai police arrested two females, Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan
in the year 2012. The arrest was made for expressing their unhappiness with a
bandh declared by Shiv Sena supporters in Maharashtra in response to the death
of Shiv Sena president Bal Thackery. The petitioners were accused of
publishing their remarks on Facebook, resulting in significant public outrage.
Employing Public Interest, the petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 32
of the Constitution, alleging that section 66A of the IT Act 2000 infringes on
their right to freedom of speech and expression.
Main Issues
Main Issue
Does the Indian Constitution recognize a right to privacy as a basic
right?
Whether the ‘Adhaar scheme’ violates privacy.
Judgment
Conclusion
On a closer look at some of the landmark judgments, we find that many women
have significantly dominated the justice system as protagonists. It does reflect
the extent of their subjugation in society, but nevertheless, underlines the
emergence of jurisprudence which has the power to address their plights. It can
be affirmed that these influential judgements have strengthened people’s faith in
the just nature of the judiciary by upholding the democratic ethos and
constitutional values.