LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION

Article 17-18

Balaji Raghavan Supreme Court held that “National

v. Union of India, Awards' would not amount to 'title'
AIR 1996 SC 770 within Article 18. The court also held
that the National Awards shall not be
used as suffixes or prefixes.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION

RIGHT TO FREEDOMS

Indibly Creative (P) Ltd. v. State of W.B., (2020) 12 SCC 436

इंडडबली नक्रएदटव (पी) क्तलडमटे ड बनाम पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य
Freedoms as recognized by the Constitution are not entrusted
by State but are inseparable from existence as human beings.
People have entrusted power to State under the Constitution
which it holds it in trust and as such it is accountable to people
in exercise of power.
Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj v. Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly,
AIR 2016 SC 867
अलगापुरम आर. मोहनराज बनाम तडमलनाडु नवधान सभा
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION
Rights guaranteed under Article 19 are available to citizens
only.
D.C & G.M. v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 937
डीसी और जीएम v. भारत संघ
The Supreme Court held that writ petition filed by the
company for violation of Fundamental Rights under
Article 19 is maintainable.

Ramesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124

रमेश थापर बनाम मद्रास राज्य
Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and of press
lay at the foundation of all democratic organizations.
Without free political discussion no public education for
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION

the proper functioning of the process of government is

possible.
Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC
641
इंडडयन एक्सप्रेस समाचार पत्र बनाम भारत संघ
Supreme Court held that 'freedom of press' means
freedom from interference from authority which would
have effect of interference with the content and
circulation of newspapers.

Express Newspapers v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 578

एक्सप्रेस समाचार पत्र बनाम भारत संघ
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION

Supreme Court held that the press is not immune from

the laws of taxation and industrial application.

Sakal Papers Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305

सकल पेपसग क्तलडमटे ड बनाम भारत संघ
The order imposing minimum price and number of pages was held to
be violative of Article 19(1)(a).
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632
आर राजगोपाल बनाम तडमलनाडु राज्य
Supreme Court held that the government has no authority in law to
impose a prior-restraint upon publication of defamatory material
against its officials.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION
Devidas Ramchandra Tuljapurkar v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 6
SCC 1
दे वीदास रामचंद्र तुलजापुरकर बनाम महाराष्ट्र राज्य
Use of obscene language against historically respected personalities
cannot be allowed in the name of artistic freedom, critical thinking or
creativity under Article 19(1)(a).

Damayanti v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 966

दमयंती बनाम भारत संघ
Supreme Court held that the right to form association necessarily implies that
the person forming the association have also the right to continue to be
associated with only those whom they voluntarily admit in the association.
Any law by which members are introduced in the voluntary association
without any option being given to the members to keep them out, or any law
which takes away the membership of those who have voluntarily joined it, will
be a law violating the right to form the association.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION
Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, AIR 1989 SC
1988
सोदन ससिंह बनाम नई ददल्ली नगर सडमनत
Supreme Court held that hawkers have fundamental right to
carry on trade on pavement of roads. However, their right is
subject to reasonable restrictions mentioned in Article 19(6).

Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (1995) 1 SCC 574

खोडे डडस्स्टलरीज क्तलडमटे ड बनाम कनागटक राज्य
Supreme Court held that a citizen has no right to carry on
trade or business in liquors as beverage. The State has a power
to prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession and distribution
except in cases for medicinal purposes.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION
B.R. Enterprise v. State of U.P., AIR 1999 SC 1867
बी.आर. उद्यम बनाम उत्तर प्रदे श राज्य
Supreme Court held that lottery cannot be construed as trade
or business within the meaning of Article 19(1)(g). It contains
element of chance and therefore, it is a gambling

Om Prakash v. State of U.P., AIR 2004 SC 1896

ओम प्रकाश बनाम उत्तर प्रदे श राज्य
Supreme Court held that ban on sale of eggs within the
municipal limits of Rikshikesh is valid as it contains reasonable
restriction. The reasonability must be construed from point of
view of cultural and religious background of the town.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION
Godawat Pan Masala Products Private Ltd. v. Union of India,
AIR 2004 SC 4057
गोदावत पान मसाला प्रोडक्ट् स प्राइवेट क्तलडमटे ड बनाम भारत संघ
Supreme Court held that ban on pan masala and guthka
containing tobacco to under age persons is not violative of
Article 19(1)(g).

Indibility Creative Pvt Ltd and others v. Govt of West Bengal and
others (2019) SCC OnLine SC 564
इंडेनबक्तलटी नक्रएदटव प्राइवेट क्तलडमटेड और अन्य बनाम पश्चिम बंगाल सरकार और अन्य
Supreme Court held that free speech cannot be gagged by fear of
mob violence. The Court ordered Rs 20 lakhs compensation to the
makers of the Bengali film "Bhobhishyoter Bhoot", which had
suffered an 'unofficial' ban from the West Bengal government.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION

State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Qureshi Kasab Jamat,

AIR 2006 SC 212
गुजरात राज्य बनाम डमजागपुर मोती कुरैशी कसाब जमात,
Supreme Court held that ban on slaughter of cows and
calves and other milch and draught cattles is not
violative of Article 19(1)(g). It is a reasonable restriction
as cows and her progeny are backbone of Indian
agriculture and economy.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION

Amit Sahini (Shaheen Bagh, In re) v. State, (2020) 10 SCC

439
अडमत सानहनी (शाहीन बाग, पुन:) बनाम राज्य
Holding meeting by blocking public place or road in
protest against particular legislation for indefinite
period without permission from authorities causing
inconvenience to commuters is not democratic way of
expressing protest. Administration must take necessary
action to clear encroachment or obstruction created by
such protesters.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION

Article 20

T. Baral v. Henry An Hoe, (1983) 1 SCC 177

टी. बराल बनाम हेनरी एन हो
Accused can take advantage of a beneficial provision
under ex post facto laws.

Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Ch. Gandhi, AIR 2013

SC 2113
आंध्र प्रदे श सरकार बनाम चौ. गांधी
If ex post facto law is ameliorative it may be
retrospective.
 Personal Guidance Study Planner
Get one on one guidance from Customized study plan with
top exam experts bi-weekly reviews

Live Classes Weekly Tests

ICONIC PLUS
Structured Unlimited
Courses Access
Test Analysis Experts' Guidelines
Get one on one guidance from Study booster workshops by
top exam experts exam experts
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION

M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300

एमपी शमाग बनाम सतीश चंद्र
Supreme Court held that Article 20(3) has following three
essentials:
(1) Person must be accused of an offence;
(2) This provision is a protection against compulsion to
be a witness;
(3) Protection is against compulsion to give evidence
against himself.
A person whose name is mentioned in the FIR as an
accused could claim the protection under Article 20.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION
R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821
आर.के. डालडमया बनाम ददल्ली प्रशासन
A person is said to be accused if the formal accusation relating
to the commission of an offence has been leveled which may
result in prosecution and conviction.

State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu, AIR 1961 SC 1808

बॉम्बे राज्य बनाम काठी कालू
Supreme Court held that interpretation of the phrase 'to be witness'
given in M.P. Sharma's case is too broad. 'To be witness' is not
equivalent to furnishing evidence. Self-incrimination can only mean
conveying information based on personal knowledge of the person
giving information and it cannot include the mechanical process of
producing documents or giving finger impressions or blood samples
etc.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION

Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, AIR 1977 SC 1025

नंददनी सत्पथी बनाम पी.एल. दाननश
Supreme Court held that protection of Article 20(3) is
available from the stage of police interrogation.

Selvi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974

सेल्वी बनाम कनागटक राज्य
Lie detector tests should be administered only with the
consent of the accused. In case the consent of the
accused is not obtained then such tests are violative of
Article 20(3).
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION

VARIOUS FACETS OF RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIBERTY

A.K Gopalan v. Union of India, AIR 1950 SC 27

ए के गोपालन बनाम भारत संघ
Personal liberty in Article 21 means liberty of physical
body and nothing else. Procedure established by law
does not means due process of law. Law means state
made law and it does not mean having element of
natural justice.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION
Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746
फ्ांक्तसस कोराली बनाम केंद्र शाक्तसत प्रदे श ददल्ली
Supreme Court held that right to live is not limited to mere
animal existence. It is something more than just physical
survival.

Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association (AHAR) v. State of

Maharashtra, (2019) 3 SCC 429
इंडडयन होटल एंड रेस्टोरेंट एसोक्तसएशन (एएचएआर) बनाम महाराष्ट्र राज्य
Supreme Court held that there cannot be a total prohibition of
dance bars in Maharashtra. The Bench also relaxed the
stringent conditions imposed by the Government for getting
license for dance bars. The complete prohibition on serving
alcohol in the dance bars was quashed as disproportionate.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION

Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39

जोसेफ शाइन बनाम भारत संघ
Offence of Adultery is unconstitutional: Supreme Court
struck down Section 497 of Indian Penal Code as
unconstitutional. Court held that it violated women's
right to dignity and hence it infringed Article 21.

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 345

नवतेज ससिंह जौहर बनाम भारत संघ
Homo-sexual acts are constitutional: Supreme Court declared
Section 377 of Indian Penal Code, unconstitutional insofar as it
criminalizes homosexual acts between consenting adults.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC

180
ओल्गा टे क्तलस बनाम बॉम्बे नगर ननगम
Right to livelihood: Supreme Court held that right to life
include right to livelihood also.

Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 2 SCC 549

चमेली ससिंह बनाम उत्तर प्रदे श राज्य
Right to shelter: Supreme Court held that right to shelter
is a fundamental right under Article 21.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION

Suchitra Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, AIR

2010 SC 235
सुडचत्रा श्रीवास्तव बनाम चंडीगढ़ प्रशासन
Reproductive choices: Supreme Court held that right to
make reproductive choices (decision to produce child or
not) is included in Article 21.

Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2039

परमानंद कटारा बनाम भारत संघ
Right to health: Supreme Court held that all doctors (private or
government) are obliged to extend medical assistance to
injured immediately without asking for legal formalities.
Ramlila Maidan v. Home Secretary, Union of India, (2012)5 SCC1
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION
रामलीला मैदान बनाम गृह सडचव, भारत संघ,
Right to sleep: Supreme Court held that right to sleep is a
fundamental right as it is biological and essential element of
basic necessities of life.

Jolly George Varghese v. State Bank of Cochin, AIR 1980 SC 470

जॉली जॉजग वगीज बनाम स्टे ट बैंक ऑफ कोचीन,
Arrest of judgment debtor: Supreme Court held that arrest and
detention of honest judgment debtor, in absence of willful
failure to pay despite sufficient means is violative of Article 21.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION
Neerja Chaudhary v. State of M.P., AIR 1984 SC 1099
नीरजा चौधरी बनाम म.प्र. राज्य,
Bonded labour: Supreme Court held that bonded labour should
be identified and rehabilitated.
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 648
जजयान कौर बनाम पंजाब राज्य
Right to die: Supreme Court held that 'right to life' does not
include 'right to die'.

Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaugh v. Union of India, AIR 2011 SC

1290
अरुणा रामचंद्र शानबाग बनाम भारत संघ
Passive euthanasia: Supreme Court held that in certain cases
passive euthanasia is allowed.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION

National Legal Service Authority v. Union of India, AIR

2014 SC 1863
राष्ट्रीय नवडधक सेवा प्राडधकरण बनाम भारत संघ,
Self-determination of gender: Supreme Court held that
self-determination of gender is part of personal liberty
guaranteed under Article 21.

Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, AIR 2011 SC 3361

बचपन बचाओ आंदोलन बनाम भारत संघ
Child rights: Supreme Court held that sexual, physical and
emotional abuse of children detained in circus is violation of
Article 21.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION
M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 1548
एम.एच. होसकोट बनाम महाराष्ट्र राज्य,
Right to free legal aid: Supreme Court held that right to free
legal aid is part and parcel of right to life and liberty.

Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360

हुसैनारा खातून बनाम नबहार राज्य
Right to speedy trial: Supreme Court held that right to speedy
trial is a fundamental right and it is implicit in Article 21.

Nirmal Singh Khalon v. State of Punjab, AIR 2009 SC 984

ननमगल ससिंह खालों बनाम पंजाब राज्य
Fair investigation: Supreme Court held that fair trial includes
fair investigation.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION

Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579

सुनील बत्रा बनाम ददल्ली प्रशासन
Keeping undertrials with convicts: Supreme Court held
that keeping undertrials with convicts in jail offends
Article 21.

Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1535

प्रेम शंकर बनाम ददल्ली प्रशासन
Right against handcuffing: Supreme Court held that
hand-cuffing is prima facie inhuman, arbitrary and
unreasonable. Handcuffing should be resorted to when
there is clear and present danger of escape.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION

Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 SC 625

नकशोर ससिंह बनाम राजस्थान राज्य
Use of third degree methods: Supreme Court held that
use of 'third degree' method by police is violative of
Article 21.

Murli S. Deora v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 40

मुरली एस. दे वडा बनाम भारत संघ
Ban on smoking in public places: Supreme Court directed
the government to issue orders banning smoking in
public places considering the adverse effect of smoking
on non-smokers.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION

Attorney-General of India v. Lachma Devi, AIR 1986 SC

467
भारत के महान्यायवादी बनाम लछमा दे वी,
Public hanging: Supreme Court held that execution of
death sentence by public hanging is violative of Article
21.

Deena v. Union of India, (1983) 4 SCC 645

दीना बनाम भारत संघ
Hanging by rope: Supreme Court held that hanging by
rope does not violate Article 21.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION
T.V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1981 SC 643
टी.वी. वथीस्वरन बनाम तडमलनाडु राज्य
Delay in execution of death sentence: Supreme Court held that
delay in execution of death sentence is violative of Article 21.

Nilabati Behra v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746

नीलाबती बेहरा बनाम उडीसा राज्य
Custodial torture/death: Supreme Court awarded
compensation to the family of deceased who died in police
custody due to beating.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION
D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., AIR 1997 SC 610
डी.के. बसु बनाम पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य
Supreme Court laid down guidelines to be followed by
investigating agencies in cases of arrest and detention.
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260
जोवगिंदर कुमार बनाम यूपी राज्य,
Supreme Court laid down guidelines regarding arrest of persons
during investigation.

Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar,(1983) 4 SCC 141

रुदल शाह बनाम नबहार राज्य
Compensation for violation of Article 21:
Supreme Court held that courts have power to award compensation
appropriate cases of violation of Article 21.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011
नवशाखा बनाम राजस्थान राज्य
Prevention of sexual harassment: Supreme Court la guidelines to
prevent sexual harassment of working in workplace.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., (1985)2
SCC 431
MC Mehta v. Union of India (Shriram Food Fertilizer case),
(1986) 2 SCC 176
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996)
3 SCC 212
Vellore Citizen's Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC
650
Right to clean environment: Supreme Court held that right to
clean environment is a fundamental right protected under
Article 21. Consequently, Supreme Court also gave various
directions regarding upkeep of environment and control of
pollution.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION

Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 3 SCC 666

मोनहनी जैन बनाम कनागटक राज्य
Supreme Court held that right to education at all levels is
a fundamental right flowing from Article 21.

Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P., (1993) 1 SCC 645

उन्नी कृष्णन बनाम आंध्र प्रदे श राज्य,
Supreme Court held that right to education is a fundamental
right flowing from Article 21 but right to free education is
available to the children until they complete the age of 14
years. After that the obligation of State to provide education is
subject to economic capacity and development.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION

State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sundar, (2011) 8 SCC 737

तडमलनाडु राज्य बनाम के. श्याम सुंदरी
Supreme Court held that the right to education should
be extended to have quality education without
discrimination on the ground of economic, social and
cultural backgrounds.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION
A.K. Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 710
ए.के. रॉय बनाम भारत संघ
Supreme Court laid down following guidelines relating to
arrest under preventive detention law:
(1) After detention the family members of detenue should be
informed about detention and place of detention;
(2) Detenu must be detained in a place where he habitually
resides unless in certain exceptional circumstances detention
at other place is feasible.
(3) Detenue must be entitled to books, writing materials, own
food and visits from family and friends;
(4) He must be kept separate from those who are convicted;
(5) Treatment of punitive character should not be meted out to
him.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION

MC Mehta. Union of India, (2019) 17 SCC 490

एमसी मेहता भारत संघ
➔ It is an established principle of law that the right to life,
as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution
includes the right to a decent environment.

➔ The right to live in an environment free from smoke

and pollution follows from the quality of life which is an
inherent part of Article 21 of the Constitution.

➔ The right to live with human dignity becomes illusory in

absence of a healthy environment.