100 Important Landmark Judgements On Indian Constitutions

100 IMPORTANT LANDMARK
JUDGMENTS ON INDIAN
CONSTITUTION
JOIN OUR TELEGRAM CHANNEL TO GET
THE HINDU NEWSPAPER AT 4:30 AM
https://t.me/clatessesntials
1. Current Affairs BACKLOG of all the months has been uploaded from JULY.
2. Legal notes (CONSTITUTION, IPC, TORTS, CONTRACT, MISCELLANEOUS) of

various coaching’s has been uploaded.
3. Practice sheets for Legal (Passage Based Questions) of various coaching’s have
been uploaded.
4. Reading Comprehension (RC) + Critical Reasoning (CR) theory Books along with
their practice sheets have been posted.
5. We post daily Key Points for the Hindu News Analysis.
ALSO, JOIN THIS CHANNEL FOR:

https://t.me/thelawgicalstudies
1. TO GET DAILY PRACTICE SHEETS FOR BOTH LEGAL AND CURRENT AFFAIRS.
2. Daily Hindu News Analysis (DHNA) at sharp 9 am.
3. FREE LEGAL BATCH THAT WILL COVER YOUR ENTIRE SYLLABUS FOR LEGAL
APTITUDE IS ABSOLUTELY FREE
In Re Berubari union and Exchange of Enclaves
1960
Justice Gajendragadkar said
The preamble is not a part of the constitution and
never be regarded as the source of any
substantive power.
Golaknath v. state of Punjab 1967
Justice Subba Rao said
The objective sought to be achieved by the constitution
is declared in sonorous terms in its preamble. It contains
in a nutshell, its ideals and its aspirations. The preamble
is not a platitude. The mode of its realization is worked
out in detail in the constitution.
Kesavananda Bharti v. state of Kerala 1973
Justice Sikri said

The preamble was part of the constitution and is of
extreme importance and the constitution should be read
and interpreted in the light of grand and noble vision
expressed in the preamble.
Charan lal v. union of India 1990
In this case court held that the recognition of the
preamble as an integral part of the constitution makes
the preamble a valuable aid in the construction of the
provisions of the constitution because unlike preamble
to an act, the preamble of the constitution occupies the
same position as other enacting words or provisions of
the constitution.
State of west Bengal v. union of India 1963
The court held by majority that the concept of

federalism in India is not truly federal in nature
however justice Subba Rao had dissenting
opinion and said it is basically federal in nature.
In Re Keshav singh case 1965
The supreme court has characterized the

Indian constitution as federal in nature
State of Rajasthan v. union of India 1977
It was observed by the supreme court that Indian union is
federal. But the extent of federalism in it is largely watered
down by the needs of progress an development of a country
which has to be nationally integrated, politically and
economically coordinated, and socially, intellectually and
spiritually uplifted. In such a system, the states cannot stand
in the way of legitimate and comprehensively planned
development of the country on the manner directed by the
central government.
State of Karntaka v. union of India and anr,. 1978
The supreme court held that, strictly speaking our

constitution is not of a federal character where separate,
independent and sovereign state could be said to have joined
to form a nation as in the united state could be said to have
joined to form a nation as in the united states of America or
as may be the position in some other countries of the world.
It is because of that reason that sometimes it has been
characterized as quasi-federal in nature.
Miss Rita Nirankari v. university of Delhi 1984
It was observed in this case that India was not a federal

state in the traditional sense of the term. It was not a
compact of sovereign states which had come together to
form a federation by ceding a part of their sovereignty
to the federal states.
Kuldip Nayar v. union of India 2006
Supreme court observed that Indian federation is a
unique federation. It is in a sense a class by itself. It
does not fit in any of the norms accepted for a federal
constitution. There can be no quarrel with the
proposition that the India model is broadly based on a
federal form of governance with a tilt towards the
center.
Raja ram pal v. speaker lok sabh 2007
The supreme court held that in the loose federal
structure that India has adopted for itself, India is an
indestructible union of destructible units.
So it can finally concluded keeping in mind the judicial
pronouncement of apex that every country frames a
constitution that suits its need.
Ram jawaya kapoor v. state of Punjab 1955
Justice B.K.Mukherjee
It was held in this case that it may not be possible to
frame an exhaustive definition of what executive
function means implies. Ordinarily the executive power
connotes the residue of governmental functions after
legislative and judicial functions are taken away.
Finally court held that no fundamental right of
petitioner is infringed by the action of the government.
A.K.Gopalan v. state of Madras 1950
A.K.Gopalan was a communist leader and he was detained
under the preventive detention act so he file a writ of habeas
corpus under article 32 for his release and argue that on the
grounds that provisions of article 13, 19, 21 and 22 of the
constitution, his detention was illegal.
The supreme court held that there was no violation of
fundamental rights enshrined in article 13, 19, 21 and 22.
under the provisions of the preventive detention act, if the
detention was as per the procedure established by law.
State of Gujarat v. Ambila mills
This case talks about doctrine of Eclipse. It was held
that doctrine of eclipse is applicable on citizens as well
as non citizens.
Basheshar Nath v. income tax commissione
It was held that unlike the US constitution in India
waiver of fundamental right is not allowed.
Romesh Thapar v. state of Madras 1950
Romesh thapar was a well known communist, used to run
crossroads magazine and he use to criticized government of
Madras on his newspaper so, due to this reason Madras
government prohibit the circulation of magazine using section
9(1A) of Madras maintenance of public order act.
Court held that the petitioner was free to approach the supreme
court for the enforcement of his fundamental rights without
approaching the high court first. And section 9(1A) was in
violation of article 19(1)(a) . Supreme court held that the freedom
of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of
ideas that can only be ensured by circulation.
Hamdard Dawakhana v. union of India
In this case supreme court had creating a distinction and
said that the advertisements do not come in the category
of free speech, but it come in commercial area/
commercial category.
Therefore, advertisement of any nature are not covered
under article 19(1)(a) freedom of speech, but under
commercial speech that is under aspect of trade &
business.
Shankari prashad v. state of India 1951
After independence, government brought land reforms so, many
zamindar had approached courts against land reforms laws using
article 31(right to property) and court realize that such laws were
violative of fundamental rights so. To solve this issue,
government passed constitution (first amendment) act, 1951. it
inserted new article that are article 31A article 31B.
Supreme court held that parliament can amend fundamental rights
and any part of the constitution and article 31A and article 31B
do not violate any provision of fundamental right. Hence, first
amendment act, 1951 is valid.
Sajjan singh v. state of Rajasthan 1965
In 1964 Rajasthan government had passed land reform act
and passed 17th constitutional amendment act. This 17th
constitutional amendment was challenged in supreme court
by using article 32 and argue this act violate fundamental
right of right to property and parliament can not use article
368 against fundamental rights.
Supreme court held that parliament can amend fundamental
rights by using article 368 i.e. constitutional amendment
even if it violate them.
Golaknath v. state of Punjab 1967
Golak nath family had 500 acres of land in Punjab.
According to Punjab security and land tenures act, the state
government held that they could keep few acres only and
remaining land was declared surplus. So, in this cases they
challenged 17th amendment which had placed Punjab act in
9th schedule and issues involved were whether fundamental
right can be amended or not.
Supreme court held that the parliament cant’ amend
fundamental rights and constitutional amendment is an
ordinary law under article 13.
Keshvananda Bharti v. state of Kerala 1973
Keshvanada Bharti was head of the Edneer Matha. He
challenged the Kerala government’s policies under two land
reform acts, to impose restrictions on the management of its
property.
So, supreme court reviewed the decision in golaknath case
and held that parliament has power to amend the
fundamental right and any part of the constitution but
parliament have no power to amend basic structure of the
constitution.

been uploaded.

Indira gandhi v. Raj Narain 1975
In 1971 lok sabha election, raj Narain lost election from Indira Gandhi in Rae Bareilly.
He filed a case against Indira Gandhi for performing election malpractices. And that on
12th June 1975 Allahabad high court found Indira Gandhi guilty. And as punishment the
court held that she cannot continue as PM and cannot contest election for another six
years. After this Indira Gandhi approached SC on 24 June 1975 but at that time
supreme court being on vacation granted conditional stay on high court’s verdict.
Thereafter, on 25th June 1975, citing internal disturbance president Fakhruddin Ali
Ahmed declared emergency.
Supreme court order parties to appear it before on 11th August 1975 but on 10th August,
39th Constitutional amendment act was passed and it inserted article 329A and this
amendment says that the election of president, prime minster, vice-president and
speaker of lok sabha unjustifiable in the courts of law.
The supreme court use master stroke and says clause (4) of article 329A which was
inserted by the 39th Amendment in 1975 is violation of basic structure.
Maneka Gandhi v. union of India 1978
On July, 1977 the regional passport office (New Delhi)
ordered Maneka Gandhi to surrender her passport citing
public interest. A main issue in this case was whether the
right to go abroad is a part of the right to personal liberty
under article 21.
Supreme court held that it is included in the right to personal
liberty. The supreme also ruled that the mere existence of an
enabling law was not enough to restrain personal liberty.
Such a law must also be just fair and reasonable.
Minerva mills v. union of India 1980
Minerva mills was a textile mill, congress government
nationalized it in early 1970s. Its owners approached to the
supreme court to challenge its nationalization one more
thing was challenged the provisions of 42nd amendment act,
1976 which nullify keshvanda Bharti verdict.
The court struck down the two changes made to the
constitution by the 42nd amendment act 1976, declaring
them to be violative of basic structure and makes it clear that
the constitution, and not the parliament is supreme.
Indra swahney v. union of India 1992
After implementation of Mandal commission
recommendation of 27% reservation to OBCs due to
this anti-reservation protest that led to riots and than this
case challenged the reservation on the basis of caste.
Supreme court upheld the constitutional validity of 27%
reservation for the OBCs with certain conditions like
creamy layer exclusion, no reservation in promotion,
total reserved quota should not exceed 50% etc.
S.R. bommai v. union of India 1994
This case deals with secularism and also while
discussing the topic of emergency.
Supreme court held that the concept of secularism in
America and India are different in nature. In India,
secularism is a basic feature and any law which
infringes secularism or amends it shall be invalid.
Md Hamid Qureshi v. state of Bihar
It was held in this case that ban on cow slaughter is not
against secularism. Neither it is unconstitutional nor it is
against secularism because it is not an essential practice
of any religion.
Puttaswamy v. union of India 2017
The Adhar card was challenged by retired justice
Puttaswamy that it violates right to privacy. The issue
before the court was that whether right to privacy was a
fundamental right or not.
The court stated that right to privacy is an inherent and
integral part of part III of the constitution that
guarantees fundamental rights. However it is not
absolute right.
State of Madras v. champakam dorairajan 1950
First case that deals with reservation. As well as this case also
played vital role on first constitutional amendment. Caste based
reservation in admission to the educational institution this
judgment resulted into amendment in article 15 of Indian
constitution.
Clause 4 was added to article 15 because of this judgment, which
provides special power to the state to make special provisions for
protection of S/ST/OBC.
Supreme court held that DPSP can not override or abridge the
fundamental right.
Waman Rao v. union of India 1981
The SC again discussed the Basic Structure doctrine. It
also drew a line of demarcation as April 24th, 1973 i.e.,
the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgement, and
held that it should not be applied retrospectively to
reopen the validity of any amendment to the
Constitution which took place prior to that date.
Mohd.Ahmed Khan V. Shah Bano Begum
Turning point for Muslim women’s fight for rights. The SC
upheld the right to alimony for a Muslim woman and said
that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is applicable to
all citizens irrespective of their religion. This set off a
political controversy and the government of the day
overturned this judgment by passing the Muslim Women
(Protection on Divorce Act), 1986, according to which
alimony need be given only during the iddat period (in tune
with the Muslim personal law).
Aruna shanbaug v. union of India 2011
The SC ruled that individuals had a right to die with
dignity, allowing passive euthanasia with guidelines.
The need to reform India’s laws on euthanasia was
triggered by the tragic case of Aruna Shanbaug who lay
in a vegetative state (blind, paralyzed and deaf) for 42
years. The verdict made passive euthanasia possible in
India in certain conditions which will be decided by the
high court.
IR Coelho v. state of Tamil Naidu 2007
In this judgment court held that if a law is included in the 9th
Schedule of the Indian Constitution, it can still be examined and
confronted in court. The 9th Schedule of the Indian Constitution
contains a list of acts and laws which cannot be challenged in a
court of law. The Waman Rao ruling ensured that acts and laws
mentioned in the IX schedule till 24 April 1973, shall not be
changed or challenged, but any attempt to amend or add more
acts to that schedule will suffer close inspection and examination
by the judiciary system.
Lily Thomas v. union of India
The SC ruled that any MLA, MLC or MP who was
found guilty of a crime and given a minimum of 2 year
imprisonment would cease to be a member of the House
with immediate effect.
A.D.M Jabalpur v. shiv Kant Shukla 1975
This case also known as Habeas Corpus case and this is
very controversial judgment of P.N.Bhagwati. A much-
criticized judgment of the SC, in which the majority
ruling went against individual freedom and seemed to
favor the state. Justice Khanna’s dissent is also well-
known.
L.Chandra Kumar v. union of India 1977
In this case it was said that the supreme court through
article 32 & the high court through article 226 have the
power of judicial review.
MC Mehta v. union of India 1987
Justice P.N.Bhagwati
First time in this case the concept of absolute liability
was introduced and court held that either industries have
intention to harm or not does not matter the industries
have to pay compensation to those who suffer form
harm.
Union of India v. R.C.Jain
Local authority an authority must fulfill the following
tests-
➢ Separate legal existence
➢ Specific area is determined to function
➢ Power to raise funds
➢ Enjoy autonomy.
➢ Entrusted by a statute.
Rajasthan state electricity board v. Mohan lal 1967
Supreme court tries to define other authorities under

article 12 that other authorities could include all
constitutional and statutory authorities on whom powers
were conferred by law.
Sukdev singh v. Bhagatram Raghuvanshi, 1975
Oil and natural Gas commission, industrial Finance

commission & LIC performs public duty therefore can
be treated as a state.
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi 1981
In this case court held that if colleges are established
and registered under societies act and controlled by
government than it comes under other authorities.

been uploaded.

Som prakash v. union of India
In this court held that if a company is public or private
does not matter if it is controlled by state government or
center government than it falls under the definition of
state under article 12.
Mysore paper Mills v. Mysore Paper mills officer’s
association 2002
Court held same verdict as given in som prakash v.
union of India.
R.D.Shetty v. international airport authority of
India
If central government control any agency than it comes
under defination of article 12 Tests are lay down to
considered other authority
➢ Entire owned or managed by state
➢ Enjoy monopoly status
➢ Department of government is transferred to corporation
➢ Deep and pervasive state control
Air India v. Nargesh Meerza Regulation
The court said that the termination of service on
pregnancy was manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary on
the basis of this it was violation of article 14 of Indian
constitution.
M.R.Balaji v. state of Mysore 1962
Government gave 68% of reservation court held it is
fraud on constitution.
State of M.P and anr v. Kumari Nivedita Jain and
ors 1981
Court upheld the states order to giving relaxation in
marks to SC, ST candidates and court also held that
providing education is charity and duty.
Private colleges were not ready for charity and private
ask for profit.
Unni Krishnan v. state of Anadhra Pradesh
Private colleges need to do some profit making as well.
Court held they can make profits provided government
should regulate the cost and suggested affiliation of
colleges. And there should be 50% reservation for
special classes.
Court held that right to free education comes under
article 21A
T.M.A.Pai foundation and other v. state of
Karnataka & ors 2002
This is second largest case till now
This case is a magna carta for entrepreneurs in the field
of education.
Education recognized under article 19(1) (g) provided
no capitation fee is charged.
P.A.Inamdar & ors v. state of Maharasthra & ors
2005
Policy of reservation cannot be enforced in higher
education. No CET exam conducted by an individual
college.
College can charge their own fee provided they are not
charging donations. And NRI seats permissible till 15%.
It was observed that as regard unaided institutions, the
state has no control and such institutions are free to
admit students of their own choice.
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. union of India and ors
2008
Article 15(5) is constitutionally valid and article 15(4)
and article 15(5) are not mutually contradictory.
Creamy layer is to be excluded from socially,
economically and backward class.
27% OBCs reservation- exclude creamy layer for OBCs
Vellore citizen welfare forum v. union of India
In this case court held that right to clean environment
comes under fundamental right under article 21.
Reliance petrochemical ltd. V. proprietors of
Indian express newspaper
This case court held that right to known or right to be
informed comes under article 21 that is right to life.
D.K.Basu v. state of west Bengal
In this case court held that if there is any illegal
detention than it violates right to life under article 21
and this case provide right against illegal detention.
Rudul shah v. state of Bihar
In this case rudul shah went to under trial and spent 14
years in jail when court give punishment it was 7 years
but he spent 14 years so he ask for a compensation.
Court held that right to compensation comes under
article 21 and he get compensation.
D.C.Wadhwa v. state of Bihar
In this case court re-promulgation of ordinance is fraud
on the constitution.
Surjeet singh Thind v. Kunwaljit Gaur
In this court held that if there is medical examination of
women’s virginity is violation of article 21 and comes
under right to privacy,
Sunil batra v. Delhi administration, 1978
This case is in right against solitary confinment.
Lata singh v. state of Uttar Pradesh
In this court held that right to marry outside their caste
or religion is also comes under fundamental right that is
under article 21.
M.H.Hoskot v. state of Maharashtra 1978
Right to legal aid is also comes under fundamental right
under article 21.
Hussainara Khatoon v. Home secretary, state of
Bihar, 1980
Court held that right to speedy trial is also comes under
fundamental right under article 21.

been uploaded.

Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi administration,
1980
This case is on right against handcuffing and this
fundamental right comes under article 21.
T.V.Vatheeswarant v. state of Tamil Naidu, 1983
This case is on right against delayed execution and this

fundamental right also comes under article 21.
Sheela Barse v. state of Maharashtra, 1983
This case is on right against custodial violence and this
fundamental right comes under article 21.
Peoples’ union for civil liberty v. union of India,
2004
This case supreme court declare right to information is
fundamental right and come under article 21 and after
this case the right to information act comes into picture.
People’s union for democratic rights v. state of
Bihar
In this case court held that sovereign immunity of stat is
subject to fundamental right.
M.S.M.Sharma v. Srikrishna Sinha
In this case court held that parliamentary proceedings
are not subject to fundamental rights.
Upendra Baxi v. state of U.P
In this case court held that Right of inmates of
protective homes also coms under fundamental right.
H.L.Trehan v. union of India
This case is on right for post-decisional hearing. And
court held that it is arbitrary to take action without
hearing thus violation of article 14.
Bijoe Emmanuel v. state of Kerala
In this case court held that right to speak includes right
not to speak.
Tata press ltd v. Mahanagar telephone Nigam ltd
In this case court held that the commercial

advertisement is part of freedom of speech and
expression.
Union of India v. Hemraj singh chauhan
In this case court held that Right of eligible employees
to be considered for promotion is virtually part of
fundamental right
Gian kaur v. state of Punjab
Court held that right to life does not include right to die.
State of Bombay v. F.N.Balsara
In this court deals with the principle of intelligible
differentia and it is also known as the old doctrine of
equality.
Anwar ali sarkar v. state of west Bengal
In this case the second principle of rational nexus was
propounded.
Rational nexus means the logical relation between an
action and effect which is understandable by a prudent
man. Basically means reasoning behind anything.
E.P.Royappa v. state of Tamil Naidu
In this case new doctrine of equality has been come out
and that is followed even today.
Supreme court held that if any action is arbitrary than it
shall be assume that it is opposed to equality. And very
important statement came out of this judgment and that
is equality is a dynamic.
Equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies.
Randhir singh v. union of India
In this case court come up with the concept of equal pay
for equal work.
D.P.Joshi v. state of M.P
Article 15 gives 5 grounds and says that discrimination
cannot be done on these 5 grounds and it would be wrong to
do that in additional article 15 provides that if there is
another rational or valid reason beyond these 5 grounds, and
than discrimination on that ground, it would be valid.
Supreme court held that the place of residence is a valid
criteria for classification. If some charges less fee to locally
domiciled students and more fee to students coming from
outside, it would be valid.
T.Devadasan v. Union of India 1963
In this case carry forward rule was declared as invalid.
Carry forward rule means whereby the unfilled reserved
vacancies of a particular year would be carried forward
for on year.
Olga tellis & others v. Bombay Municipal
corporation & others
In this case court held that article 21 also includes right
to livelihood.
S.P.Gupta v. union of India
This case is also known as first judges case where the supreme
court acted against its own self interest.
Supreme court held that the word consultation held in article
124(2) & 217(1) does not mean concurrence but it means that it is
not necessary that president must consult chief justice of India or
necessarily ask for his recommendations. And it only means
exchange of views.
It was also held that if there is any disagreement between chief
justice of India & president than the ultimate power shall remain
with union government and not to the chief justice.

been uploaded.

S.C.Advocate on record v. association of India
This case overruled first judges case and while discussing
the meaning of word consultation upheld that if there is a
conflict between chief justice of India & president than chief
justice’s opinion shall be given more importance.
By this judgment of 1993 supreme court took its power back
from the union government and held that the advice of chief
justice of India is binding on the president
In special reference case of 1998
This is third judges case where supreme court held that
meaning of consultation is not just chief justice’s
opinion and consultation would mean opinion of 4
justices of India along with opinion of the chief justice
of India.
Naz foundation v. government of NCT of Delhi
2009
Court deals this case on the bases of right to life under
article 21 that is dignity and privacy and other aspect is
article 377 is a violation of right to equality under
article 14 &15 and this discrimination is unreasonable
discrimination. And article 15 clearly exclude any kind
of discrimination on the bases of sex.
Suresh kumar kousal v NAZ Foundation 2013
Court held two things in this case.
➢ homosexual is a criminal offence only parliament
can only decriminalize this offence no court have
power to interfere on such matters.
➢ Right to privacy should not be extend too much and it
should not include any kind of offence
NALSA v. union of India 2014
Court held that article 14 says right enjoyed by any person
includes men, women and transgender as well.
In article 15says no gender based discrimination and this
article also includes no discrimination on the grounds of
sexual orientation.
Court held that article 19 protect privacy on gender identity
integrity.
In article 21includes right to choose gender identity.
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy v. union of India 2017
Supreme court held that right to privacy is a
fundamental right.
Justice Chandrachud overruled suresh kumarkausal
case and said sexual orientation is an essential
attribution of privacy
Navtej singh johar v. union of India 2018
De-criminalized all consensual sex among adults in
private. Including homosexual sex.
India young lawyer association v. state of Kerala
Supreme court removed gender discrimination and

allow women of all ages can enter in Sabrimala temple.
And supreme court also held the practice of Sabrimala
temple is a violative article 14 of Hindu women.
Swapnil Tripathi v. supreme court of India
In this case court held that Cases on constitution and
national interest to be live streamed.
CJI Deepak Misra held that the court should live
telecast proceedings of some cases on public
importance.
Shailesh Manubhai Parmar v. election commission
of India
In this case court held that no option of NOTA in Rajya
sabha.
State of Maharashtra v. vijay Ghogre
In this case court allowed reservation in promotion for
SC/ST employees.
Shafin Jahan vAshokan K.M
This is also known as hadia case.
In this case court held that right to change of faith is
part of fundamental right to choice.
BabashebMarutiKamble v. state of Maharashtra
In this case court held that if any SLP is filed against

death sentence than it can not be dismissed without any
reasonable reasoning.
Bar council of India v. A.K.Balaji & ors
In this case court held that no foreign courts can
practice in Indian courts.
Public interest foundation & ors v. union of India
& ors
In this case court held that no candidates get
disqualified on the bases of that he had criminal charges
against him.
Lalit Yadav v. state of Chattisgarh
In this case court held that the identity of a rape victim
should not be disclosed otherwise it will be violation of
section 228A IPC.
Arjun Gopal & ors v. union of India & ors
In this case court held there should be no sale of
firecrackers through online mode.
Anuradha Bhasin v. state of Karnataka 2020
In this case court held that access of internet is a
fundamental right and comes under article 21.
Nandini satpathy v. dani & anr 1978
In this case a former chief minister Nandini Satpathy
was instructed to appear before the police and she was
provided with questions in relation to her alleged
acquisition of disproportionate assets but she refuse to
answer the question by using article 20(3) that is self-
incrimination.
Supreme court held right to silent is fundament right.

been uploaded.


100 Important Landmark Judgements On Indian Constitutions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

100 Important Landmark Judgements On Indian Constitutions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

100 IMPORTANT LANDMARK

2. Legal notes (CONSTITUTION, IPC, TORTS, CONTRACT, MISCELLANEOUS) of

5. We post daily Key Points for the Hindu News Analysis.

ALSO, JOIN THIS CHANNEL FOR:

2. Daily Hindu News Analysis (DHNA) at sharp 9 am.

Justice Sikri said

The court held by majority that the concept of

The supreme court has characterized the

The supreme court held that, strictly speaking our

It was observed in this case that India was not a federal

2. Legal notes (CONSTITUTION, IPC, TORTS, CONTRACT, MISCELLANEOUS) of

5. We post daily Key Points for the Hindu News Analysis.

ALSO, JOIN THIS CHANNEL FOR:

2. Daily Hindu News Analysis (DHNA) at sharp 9 am.

Supreme court tries to define other authorities under

Oil and natural Gas commission, industrial Finance

2. Legal notes (CONSTITUTION, IPC, TORTS, CONTRACT, MISCELLANEOUS) of

5. We post daily Key Points for the Hindu News Analysis.

ALSO, JOIN THIS CHANNEL FOR:

2. Daily Hindu News Analysis (DHNA) at sharp 9 am.

2. Legal notes (CONSTITUTION, IPC, TORTS, CONTRACT, MISCELLANEOUS) of

5. We post daily Key Points for the Hindu News Analysis.

ALSO, JOIN THIS CHANNEL FOR:

2. Daily Hindu News Analysis (DHNA) at sharp 9 am.

This case is on right against delayed execution and this

In this case court held that the commercial

2. Legal notes (CONSTITUTION, IPC, TORTS, CONTRACT, MISCELLANEOUS) of

5. We post daily Key Points for the Hindu News Analysis.

ALSO, JOIN THIS CHANNEL FOR:

2. Daily Hindu News Analysis (DHNA) at sharp 9 am.

Supreme court removed gender discrimination and

In this case court held that if any SLP is filed against

2. Legal notes (CONSTITUTION, IPC, TORTS, CONTRACT, MISCELLANEOUS) of

5. We post daily Key Points for the Hindu News Analysis.

ALSO, JOIN THIS CHANNEL FOR:

2. Daily Hindu News Analysis (DHNA) at sharp 9 am.

You might also like