Important Judicial cases

1. Gopalan Case (1950)

a. Interpreted key FRs under Art 19 and 21 => narrow view of Art 21.
b. SC said that Preventive Detention Law doesn’t violate FRs
c. Rejected DPL (favoured PEBL in art 21 also)
2. Champakam Dorairajan case (1951)
a. FR>DPSP
b. FR can be amended by Parliament by CA
c. Led to 1st AA, 1951 => reservation of backward classes (added Art 15(4) for socially
and educationally backward classes), added Art 31A (land reform doesn't violate
FR) and Art 31B (9th Schedule)
3. Shankari Prasad Case (1951)
a. Shakari Prasad's land taken by state after 1st AA and he cannot approach court since
9th schedule -> challenged 1st AA
b. FR can be amended by CA (Art 368)
c. "Law" in Art 13(2) doesn't cover Constitutional Amendment => 1st AA is legal
▪ Art 13(2) - law violating FR will be void to the extent of violation
4. Berubari Union Case (1960)
a. Parliament's power to make amendments under Art 3 (state area change)=> cannot
secede territory through this, need Constitutional amendment to do it => hence 9th
AA was passed to cede Berubari to East Pak
b. Preamble not an integral part of Constitution => not enforceable in court
• 1969 - SC ruled that for settlement of a boundary dispute btw India and another
country can be done by an Executive Action (as it is not cessation of territory) =>
Maganbhai Patel vs UoI (1969)
• But to secede territory (no context of settling boundary dispute) => need Constitutional
Amendment
• Under Article 1,2,3 -> Acquiring Foreign Territory => through ordinary legislative process
(law passed by simple majority)

• ART 3 -

Rishabh Kumar Rewar – AIR 104, CSE 2020

Jayant & Rishabh UPSC CSE Notes and Strategy - https://t.me/jayantrishabh
 o

a. Changing name of city => by EXECUTIVE ORDER (Don't need CA or law)

5. 17th AA,1964 - added more than 40 land reform laws under 9th schedule
6. Sajjan Singh Case (1965) - Sajjan Singh of Rajasthan lost land and challenged 17th AA, 1964
a. FR can be amended by Art 368 -> same judgement as Shankari Prasad
7. Golaknath Case (1967) - Golaknath of Punjab lost land and challenged 17th AA, 1964 =>
same reasons ass Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh
a. REVERSED ALL PRIOR JUDGEMENTS!!
b. FR>DPSP => Parliament cannot amend FR for implementation of DPSPs =>
parliament cannot amend FR (under Art368) -> reversed ruling of Shankari Prasad
and Sajjan Singh
c. "Law" under Art 13(2) includes Constitutional Amendment Acts too
d. Art 368 gives procedure for amendment, not the power to amend => Art 368
doesn't override Art 13 => FR = Sacrosanct
• 24th AA, 1971 - countered Golaknath case
a. Added Art 13(4) - "law" doesn't include CAAs
b. Added Art 386(3) - Art 13 doesn't apply to Art 368
c. Replaced word "procedure" with "power" in Art 368
• 25th AA, 1971
a. Added Art 31C :- 39(b) and 39(c ) DPSPs > Art 14,19,31
• 29th AA, 1971 - added Kerala Land reform act to 9th schedule
8. Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) - saint in kerala challenged 29th AA, 1971
a. DPSP Art 39 (b), (c ) > FR Art. 14 & 19
b. Partially struck down Art 31C which prohibited judicial review
c. Prospective Judgement - all laws added to 9th schedule till 1973 shall remain
immune from Judicial Review
d. Gave basic structure funda
9. Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain, 1975
a. 'Judicial Review is part of basic structure doctrine' => you can't take that away using
38th AA ~ used basic structure doctrine for the first time
10. Menaka Gandhi Case (1978)
a. DPL (Judicial review) on Art 21 => going abroad is Right to Liberty (maneka gandhi -
passports act) under art 21 => mere existance of an enabling law is not enough to
restrain personal liberty. This law should also be "just, fair and reasonable"
b. Overruled AK Gopalan Case
• 42nd AA => no law made by parliament will be under Judicial Review

Rishabh Kumar Rewar – AIR 104, CSE 2020

Jayant & Rishabh UPSC CSE Notes and Strategy - https://t.me/jayantrishabh
 11. Minerva Mills Case (1980)
a. 'Everything in India is under Judicial Review' => evolved Basic structure doctrine
b. Harmony and balance btw DPSC and FR is an essential feature of basic structure
c. Art 14,19,21 (heaven of freedoms) > DPSP
12. Waman Rao Case (1981)
a. Validity of 9th Schedule
b. Basic Structure doctrine should not be applied retrospectively to reopen validity of
any amendment before 24 Apr, 1973
c. Laws in 9th schedule after this date, can be closely examined by court
13. Shah Bano Case (1985)
a. Right to alimony for a muslim woman & CrPC, 1973 is applicable to everyone
irrespective of religion
b. Overturned by Muslim Women (protection on Divorce) Act, 1986 => alimony only
needed to be given during iddat period
14. Olga Tellis vs BMC (1985)
a. Expanded meaning of art 21 also includes Right to Livelihood (2nd generation) => SC
brought socio-economic rights under FR from Part IV
15. MC Mehta and Union of India (1986)
a. Rights under Art 32 are not only limited to preventive measures but to remedial
measures also after rights are violated
b. Industries engaged in hazardous activities => Absolute liability (i.e. even if not
deliberate intention or guilty mind => still action is criminal. "Mistake" is not a
defence)
c. Amount of compensation must be correlated with magnitude and capacity of
industry => so it will be a deterrent
d. Cases pertaining to envt require expertise and hence special courts should be setup
(foundation of NGT)
16. Indra Sawhney and Union of India (1992)
a. Upheld constitutional validity of 27% reservation for OBCs (conditions - creamy
layer, no reservation in promotion, total reserved quota < 50% )
17. Kihoto Hollohan case, 1992
a. Court upheld sweeping discretion of Speaker in deciding cases of disqualification of
MLAs under 10th schedule => presiding officer acts as tribunal (subject to judicial
review)
18. Nilabati Behera vs State of Odisha (1993)
a. Right of victim to seek compensation in case of violation of FR
b. Lessen custodial violence by issuing guidelines on arrest and detention
19. SR Bommai Case (1994)
a. Stopped Misuse of article 356
b. It refined federal character of consti
▪ 356 = only when breakdown of constitutional machinery, not administrative
machinery
c. Federalism => basic structure
d. Declared secularism as basic structure => if anti-secular politics in state then Art
356
20. Vishaka and State of Raj (1997)
a. Regarding Sexual harassment at workplace
b. SC gave set of guidelines for employers => "Vishaka Guidelines"

Rishabh Kumar Rewar – AIR 104, CSE 2020

Jayant & Rishabh UPSC CSE Notes and Strategy - https://t.me/jayantrishabh
 21. Samatha and State of Andhra Pradesh (1997)
a. Nullified all mining leases granted by AP in Scheduled Areas
b. Declared forest land, tribal land, and govt land in scheduled areas cannot be leased
for industrial operations => only permissible for govt undertaking and tribal people
22. Rupa Ashok Hurra Case, 2002
a. Gave Curative Petition funda under Art 137
23. Prakash Singh vs UoI, 2006 - police reforms
a. 7 Police Reforms
24. IR Coelho and state of TN (2007)
a. Laws in 9th Schedule (placed after Keshavananda Bharti case were open to judicial
review if they violate the "golden triangle" = Art. 14,19,21 => can be examined by
court
b. Dual Test => Law under 9th schedule can be declared unconstitutional if
▪ Violates FR + damages basic structure => Both
25. Aruna Shanbaug Case (2011)
a. Individuals have a right to die with dignity => allowed passive euthanasia with
guidelines (Passive - if oxygen cylinder finishes, not refilling it. Active - adding
poison in drip)
b. Concept of "living will" was allowed (advanced medical directive)
26. NOTA Judgement (2013)
a. Introduced NOTA option for voters (no right to reject though. Candidate with
highest votes wins)
27. Lily Thomas and Union of India (2013)
a. If MLA/MP/MLC => gets min 2 yrs of imprisonment => immediate disqualification
28. Nirbhaya Case (2014)
a. Introduction of Criminal Law (amendment) Act, 2013
b. Definition of rape under -
▪ POCSO Act, 2012
▪ Indian Evidence Act, 1872
▪ Indian Penal Code, 1860
▪ CrPC, 1973
29. NALSA and Union of India (2014)
a. Recognition of transgender persons as 3rd gender
b. Instructed govt to treat them as minorities and expand reservation in education,
jobs etc.
30. Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015)
a. Struck down Section 66A of IT Act
31. Triple Talaq Judgement, 2016 (Shayra Bano vs UoI)
a. Outlawed instant triple talaq
32. Right to Privacy (2017) - Justice Puttaswamy Case
a. Right to Privacy as FR (Art 14, 19 ,21)
b. Aadhar - okay
c. Explicitly overrules previous judgements -
▪ Kharak Singh vs state of UP
▪ MP Sharma vs Union of India
33. Repealing Section 377 (2018)
34. Common Cause vs UOI (2018)

Rishabh Kumar Rewar – AIR 104, CSE 2020

Jayant & Rishabh UPSC CSE Notes and Strategy - https://t.me/jayantrishabh
 a. PVS (permanent Vegetative State) & Living Will => to die with choice and dignity -
also under Art21
35. Fahima Shirin vs State of Kerala, 2019
a. Right to Internet Access as FR under Right to Privacy (Art 21)

36. Reservation Cases

a. Champakram Dorairajan (1951)
▪ SC struck down govt order of caste-based reservation in govt jobs and
educational insti
▪ Basis for 1st AA, 1051 adding Art 15(4)
b. Indra Sawhney (1992)
▪ Approved 27% OBC reservation (creamy layer criteria)
▪ Reservation Not >50%
c. Nagaraj (2006)
▪ Can extend reservations for SCs and STs on 3 conditions
1. Collect quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of
that class in public employment
2. Provide proof for backwardness of class
3. Show how reservations in promotions would further administrative
efficiency
d. Jarnail Singh (2018)
▪ Govt need not collect quantifiable data to demonstrate backwardness of
public employees belonging to SC/ST to provide reservation in promotions
e. 2020 -
▪ Reservation in promotion not a FR => however if state wishes to do so, it
has to ->
1. Provide collect quantifiable data ……for reservations in promotions
f. 2021 case - read in detail

Rishabh Kumar Rewar – AIR 104, CSE 2020

Jayant & Rishabh UPSC CSE Notes and Strategy - https://t.me/jayantrishabh