EXECUTIVE

K.M Nanavati v State of Bombay

- Held in 1959
- Facts: Naval Commander Nanavati was accused of murder of Prem Ahuja
- Jury Trial: Jury held NOT guilty (8:1) (304 CRPC). But Sessions Judge was not satisfied with
the decision and considered the decision unreasonable and referred it to Division Bench of
Bombay HC. (LED TO THE ABOLITION OF JURY SYSTEM)
- Supreme Court held that the application made to the governor and the SLP cannot proceed
parallelly. Basically, if the SLP is filed then the power of the governor in such a case shall be
ceased.
- Accused was convicted to be guilty of murder and given life imprisonment and the SC
dismissed the Appeal.
- After the SC dismissed the Appeal, the accused appealed for Pardon (TO THE GOVERNOR
OF MAHARASHTRA) and this was granted to him (because: 1) not a hardened criminal; 2)
The Governor was the sister of Nehru; 3) By the time this was granted, he had served 3 years
in prison:; and 4) sister of the deceased dropped her objections)

Kehar Singh v UOI

- Held in 1986
- Accused was convicted of offence in connection to assassination of Indira Gandhi (PM at that
time)
- Convicted by the Add. Sessions Judge and all the appeals failed by way of dismissals.
- Applied to President for grant of pardon by stating that the verdict was flawed. And that the
accused be granted an opportunity of oral hearing.
- SC held that President can pardon anyone and come to a different conclusion that the court
on a mercy petition BUT this conclusion has to be judicially reviewed again by the SC.
- Basically, pardoning is subject to judicial reviews and is not an absolute power that can grant
wide discretion to the President
- So basically, anyone has the RIGHT to submit a mercy petition to the President but the right
of an oral hearing is on the discretion of the President.

Epuru Sudhakar v State of Andhra Pradesh

- Held in 2006
- Judicial review of the order of the President is available and their order can be disputed on
the grounds that it is mala fide, passed without application of mind, relevant materials have
been kept out of considerations, etc.
- SC held that while exercising pardoning powers, religion, caste, political affiliation, etc
should not be considered.
- While exercising this power, they have to keep in mind the effect that their decision might
have on the victim’s family and the society AND what kind of precedent it sets for the future.

DC Wadhwa v State of Bihar

- Held in 1986
- The issue of frequent promulgation of ordinances was brought up
- Petition was regarding 256 ordinances that were promulgated in Bihar in 15 years
- Included 11 which were kept alive for more than 10 years (called as ordinance raj)
- SC held that the legislative power of the executive to promulgate ordinances is to be used in
exceptional circumstances and not as a substitute for the legislature
- Promulgation of ordinances led to colourable exercise of power which amounted to fraud
(Doctrine of Colourable Legislation)

RK Garg v UOI
- Held in 1981
- President used an Ordinance which later became an Act after assent on 27th March with
retrospective effect from 12th Jan (date of promulgation of ordinance)
- Writ petition challenged the constitutional validity of the ordinance and stated that: 1) since
it had the effect of amending the tax laws, not valid as President does not have that power; 2)
the provisions of the act are violative of Article 14
- SC held that 1) if the Parliament has the power to pass legislation then so does the president
by issuing an ordinance; 2) Article 14 does not forbid reasonable classification

Rameshwar Prasad v UOI

- Held in 2006
- The appellant along with three other MLAs in the defunct house (LA) filed a petition before
the Supreme Court of India challenging the constitutionality of the Presidential Proclamation
- They asked that the dissolution of the Assembly be held as ‘unconstitutional’
- While these petitions were still pending, ECI announce fresh elections in Bihar
- This created a challenging situation as the outcome of the election could complicate matters
while the SC was yet to decide the matter
- A constitutional bench led by the CJ declared the President’s proclamation to dissolve the
Assembly as unconstitutional BUT due to the impending elections, the court chose not to
reinstate the Assembly

Nabam Rebia v DY Speaker Arunachal Pradesh LA

- Held in 2017
- (Nov, 2015) 25 Congress MLAs rebelled against CM Tuki. 13 MLAs (BJP + 2 independent)
sent a letter to the governor, expressing displeasure against the CM’s government and the
speaker. Moreover, 21 Congress MLAs refused to attend party meetings due to mismanagement
by the CM.
- The Governor acting without the advice of the CM advanced the session of the LA and listed
the removal of the speaker on the agenda
- (Dec, 2015) The Speaker (Nabam Rebia) disqualified the rebel MLAs on grounds of
defection. Resolution to remove the Speaker was adopted (NOTE: Speaker is normally from
the ruling government only). The Speaker challenged this dismissal before the HC.
- (Jan, 2016) HC stayed the disqualification of the MLAs and dismissed the Speaker’s plea.
- Speaker filed appeal before the SC
- While this matter was going on, Union Govt. imposed President’s Rule in the State and
dismissed the State Government (for the first time ever). However, SC nullified President’s
rule and restored the state government with CM Tuki (President’s Rule is subject to Judicial
Review)
- Held: Governor cannot apply discretion without ‘aid and advice’ of Cabinet to summon
assembly for floor test (the removal of the speaker and all that). The governor can someone,
prorogue and dissolve SLA on the Eden advise of the council of ministers with CM as the head.
Governor’s discretionary powers are limited to with holding assent to bills, appointment of
CM, dismissal of government, which has lost confidence, but refuses to quit.
- However, the CM was soon voted out of power in a floor test, and the court’s decision was
reversed through political means. (NOTE: Floor Test means test of the majority)

LEGISLATIVE
Jaya Bachchan v UOI
- Held in 2006
- Was nominated in RS by President Kalam on the recommendation of ECI.
- However, she was disqualified as she was holding an office of profit (Chairperson of UP Film
Development Council)
- The appellant stated that she did not receive any payment nor did she use any of the facilities
untitled
- HELD that the decisive factor is whether the office is capable of yielding a profit or thank
unity, gain, or not, whether that again is in fact received by the individual holding that office.
SC stated that any kind of benefits or perks also are included in the purview.

Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillu

- Held in 1992
- The constitutional challenge to anti-defection law was settled
- The validity of the law was challenged on the grounds that the law takes away the freedom of
the party members to change their affiliation even in case of genuine reasons
- SC rejected this contention and upheld the validity of the case and held that Presiding
Officer’s decision of disqualification can be subject to judicial review
- In this case, the discretionary powers of the Speaker were challenged (can his decision
regarding defection be final), citing likelihood of bias. SC held that the main objective of the
law is to keep the political system stable and to prevent unethical and random defections.

Pandit MSM Sharma v Shri Krishna Sinha

- Held in 1959
- Known as the Searchlight Case
- MSM was a journalist of ‘Searchlight’ and Sinha was the CM of Bihar
- A member of the LA delivered a speech on the floor that was one of the ‘bitterest attacks’
against the way the CM was conducting the administration. Parts of his speech were expunged.
- Searchlight published the whole speech (even the parts that were expunged)
- A notice was served to MSM stating him to show cause why appropriate should not be taken
against him due to this
- MSM filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution contending the said notice and stated
that it violated his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
- SC held that SLA has the same powers as the LS and so the assembly possessed the power to
ban the applicant from publishing any portion of the proceeding that was ordered by the speaker
to be expunged.

Raja Ram v Speaker, LS

- Held in 2007
- In relation to Parliamentary Privilege
- A sting operation was conducted against 10MPs and 1MPs and it was revealed that to ask
certain questions, they were demanding bribes.
- The operation was live broadcasted. Then a Parliamentary committee was made to investigate
into the video and it was found that the video was original and that the MPs had indeed taken
bribes.
- So the MPs were charged and expelled.
- So they moved to the SC.
- The MPs stated that 1) it is against their Parliamentary Privilege; 2) the Parliament has no
powers for expulsion. Hence it is a violation of Article 19; and 3) no procedure was followed
- The Houses state that the SC has no jurisdiction to review this.
- SC held that 1) SC isn’t reviewing the procedure, it’s checking for any illegality or
irregularity; 2) that India is a country which follows Constitutional Supremacy and the privilege
only exists if the acts are done for public interest; 3) The committee’s decision will be FINAL;
4) Article 19 is not getting violated as contesting elections is not a fundamental right in India.

JUDICIARY
First Judges Case
- Held in 1981
- Held that ‘executive supremacy’ in matters related to appointment of SC Judges
- President is NOT bound to act in accordance with the consultation
- Power of appointment is solely and exclusively vested with the CG

Subhash Sharma v UOI

- Held in 1991
- Petition which asked for relief of mandamus to fill up vacancies of Judges in SC and HCs.
- Held that the views of the CJ of India and States should be taken into to safeguard the
independence of the judiciary and to ensure that proper people are selected. (the predominant
status of the CJ is CENTRAL to maintaining the independence of the judiciary)
- Moreover that CJ of India and States’ views must be given significant consideration UNLESS
the executive has some material in possession which may indicate that the appointment in
undesirable.

Second Judges Case

- Held in 1993
- Overruled First Judges Case (Nine Bench 7:2 majority)
- Held that the CJI should have primacy in the appointment of SC and HC Judges
- Appointment of CJ of States should be based on seniority but also the opinion of CJI and two
other senior most judges should be taken into account
- The word ‘consultation’ instead of ‘concurrence’ was used to ensure absolute discretion was
not given to judicial head or executive head
- Thus, laid down judicial supremacy in appointment of judges

Third Judges Case

- Held in 1998
- NOT A CASE but a ‘presidential reference’
- Under Article 143, President sought SC’s classification on the ‘collegium system’ as laid
down in the Second Judges Case
- Held that under Article 124(2) CJI should consult a collegium of four senior most judges of
the SC + if two or more of those judges say no to any appointment, then that recommendation
should not be made to the government
- Opinion should be sent to the President in writing & CJI should send HIS own opinion also
- President can send back the recommendation but if the same name is proposed again, he is
bound to accept it.

Fourth Judges Case

- Held in 2015
- the SC struck down the NJAC (National Judicial Appointment Commission) act as
‘unconstitutional and void’.
- It said that the act altered the basic features of the Constitution as it impairs the ‘independence
of the judiciary’ and the ‘separation of powers’ by conferring arbitrary powers on various
authorities.
- Struck down the 99th amendment in which it was introduced.

EMERGENCY
SR Bommai v UOI
- Held in 1998
- In regards to misuse of President’s Rule by the Central Government
- Held: the power of the President to dismiss a State Govt in a federal structure is not
ABSOLUTE. President’s Rule can only be imposed when approved by both the houses of the
Parliament independently HOWEVER president can suspend SLA temporarily (this can be
ONLY done after the Parliament approves the proclamation).
- Question of the state government losing the confidence should be decided on the floor of the
house
- President’s Rule is also subject to Judicial Review (‘Presidential Satisfaction’)
- Satisfaction of the President should be based on relevant material (Burden lies on the Centre
to prove that this material actually exists and is relevant)
- Basically, ALL discretionary powers of the President are subject to judicial review

State of Rajasthan v UOI

- Held in 1977
- Rajasthan and six other states filed suits in the SC to declare the letter of the Home Minister
to advise the Governor to dissolve the SLA as illegal
- The SC held that the legal right here refers to that of a State and not the government in power.
It provided two necessary grounds that could be only invoked while challenging President’s
Rule (if the satisfaction has violated constitutional provisions AND if the satisfaction is mala
fide)

ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla

- Held in 1976
- Known as the Habeas Corpus Case
- The most serious challenge to the independence of the judiciary came. When Prime Minister
Indira Gandhi decided to impose an emergency through a proclamation by the President.
- Background: Gandhi’s election to the LS was challenged before the Allahabad HC where she
was convicted of indulging in wrong practices and declared her election void (barred from
contesting ANY election for the next 6 years). She appealed to the SC but was only granted a
conditional stay.
- Then she decided to impose an emergency. On the next day, the right to approach the SC to
enforce Articles 14, 21 and 22 were taken away. And after this, many leaders of the opposition
and journalists were arrested.
- Many of the people who were arrested went to the HCs and even got favourable verdicts. The
government noticed this and went to the SC.
- The verdict given was 4:1 with J. Khanna giving a dissent.
- The Court held that given the order of the President was dated before the arrest, no person
has any locus standi to move any writ petition to the HC under Article 226 for Habeas Corpus
or any other writ and cannot challenge the legality of the order of detention on the grounds that
it is illegal or based on mala fide intention.
- J. Khanna stated that the right to enforce Article 21 should no be suspended. If it is, then there
would be no remedy against the deprivation of a person’s life or liberty.
- The judgement favours the State instead of individual liberty.

AMENDMENT
Shankari Prasad v UOI
- Held in 1951
- Parliament’s amending powers included the power to amend the Fundamental Rights in Part
III as well.

Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan

- Held in 1965
- In this case also the SC held that the Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution
including the FR.
- Though it is important to note that two dissenting judges stated that fundamental rights could
become a ‘plaything’ of the majority party of the Parliament

IC Golaknath v State of Punjab

- Held in 1967
- Court reversed their stand on amendability of the FRs.
- Stated that FRs are out of the reach of the Parliament and stated that Article 368 gives the
procedure to amend the FRs but does NOT give the power to do that to the Parliament

Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala

- Held in 1973
- Landmark case that defines the concept of ‘Basic Structure Doctrine’
- The SC held that the Parliament can amend the FRs BUT NOT THE BASIC STRUCTURE
OF THE CONSTITUTION
- The judgement implied that the Parliament only has the power to amend the constitution and
not rewrite it.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain
- Held in 1975
- Validity of the 39th Amendment Act was called into question and Clause 4 of Article 329A
which destroyed the basic structure and violated the Doctrine of Separation of Powers was held
to be unconstitutional
- The SC stated that it was beyond the powers of the Parliament to destroy the basic features of
the Constitution of India

Minerva Mills v UOI

- Held in 1980
- The 42nd Amendment tried to nullify Article 14 and 19
- The SC struck down those changes as invalid and unconstitutional and that they damaged the
basic structure. SC said that in India the Constitution and NOT the Parliament is supreme and
that the Parliament has LIMITED amending power.
- Furthermore stated that Judicial Review and the balance between FRs and DPSPs belong to
the Basic Structure

Waman Rao v UOI

- Held in 1981
- The SC held that the amendments made to the 9th Schedule before the Kesavananda
judgement are valid and those passed after that date can be subject to scrutiny. Basically stated
that the previous judgement should not be applied retrospectively.

IR Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu

- Held in 2006
- The SC held that the validity of the 9th Schedule will not be called into question BUT any
law added to it after the Kesavananda judgement can be challenged.
- Stated that any amendment has to go through a test to see that it is in accordance with Articles
21, 14 and 19.
- Finally, the Court also stated that the ‘effect and impact’ test (what are the consequences of
the said amendment) should be considered while determining whether any law is damaging the
basic structure or not.

CENTRE-STATE RELATIONS
State of Bombay v RMDC
- Held in 1957
- Held that gambling or conducting the business of gambling is not subject to private ownership
and not included in the meaning of ‘trade, commerce or intercourse’.
- And so, it is NOT included under the fundamental right of trade and profession

State of Bihar v Charushila Devi

- Held in 1959
- Facts: Bihar Legislature enacted the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act for the protection and
preservation of properties belonging to the Hindu religious trusts. The Respondent created a
trust deed of her properties of several houses and the land was in Bihar and Calcutta (the trust
was ONLY in Bihar)
- The question was whether the Act can apply to trust properties outside Bihar?
- The court held that the act could affect the trust property situated outside Bihar but ONLY if
the property was related to a trust that was situated in Bihar (where the trustees functioned)

Prafulla Kumar v Bank of Commerce Ltd

- Held in 1947
- Issue of the case was the constitutionality of the Bengal Moneylenders Act which was adopted
by the State Legislature. It was contested that on the grounds that the Act only applied to
promissory notes.
- The ISSUE was that promissory notes come under the purview of the Union List so it was
argued that the state had no power to create laws concerning a union matter
- The Privy Council correctly determined the genuine object, scope and effect of the Act
(MONEY LENDING & INTEREST ON THE SAME) and stated that it’s primary issue is not
promissory notes so the State can pass legislation
- In this case the doctrine of pith and substance was vital in interpreting the case’s main subject
matter. The doctrine is used to safeguard the rigorous pattern of power-sharing between the
state and union

State of Karnataka v M/S Drive In Enterprises

- Held in 2001
- The issue was the imposition of tax in ‘drive in cinemas’. The state assessed and entertainment
tax on automobiles, entering the theatre in addition to collecting and entertainment tax on those
being entertained.
- The issue arose as to whether the state legislature has the authority to adopt legislation
imposing a tax on entry of cars within such theatres under the State List
- The SC held that what must be determined is the true character of the levy, the essence and
content and that in its light, the state legislature’s competence must be assessed
- The doctrine of pith and substance states that enactment cannot be held ultra vires simply due
to its nomenclature indicates that it encroachers on a matter assigned to another heading of
legislation.

Naga People’s Movement for Human Rights v UOI

- Held in 1998
- Case considered the validity of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958
- The SC ruled unanimously in favour of the validity of the Act. Stated that the governor or the
CG has the authority under this act to declare the whole or any part of the State to be in such a
troubled state that the use of armed forces in aid of civil power is deemed to be appropriate in
their view.
- Also said that since the Parliament has the authority to pass AFSPA, it cannot be challenged
because it is colourable legislation or a fraud on the Parliament’s legislative power.

Kameshwar Prasad v State of Bihar

- Held in 1962
- Government released a notice stating that government servants cannot participate in strikes
or demonstrations so six appellants filed a petition under Article 226 in the Patna HC
challenging the validity of the notice under Article 19
- SC held that ‘Right to Strike’ is NOT a fundamental right
- It also struck down the rule in the notice as the rule wasn’t framed in such a way so as to
single out those types of demonstrations which can cause disturbance to public tranquility.
(Doctrine of Severability - to declare some part of the provision void; HOWEVER THIS WAS
NOT POSSIBLE HERE. The unconstitutional part could not be separated from the
constitutional so the whole thing was struck down)

ELECTION
Anoop Baranwal v UOI
- Held in 2023
- 4 writ petitions were filed under Article 32 and the court was called upon to consider the true
effects of Article 324(2) which talks about the appointment of Election Commissioners
- Held that the appointment for the post of the CHIEF Election Commissioners and other
Commissioners will be done by the PRESIDENT on the advice of a committee (PM, Leader of
Opposition and CJI)

SS Dhanoa v UOI
- Held in 1991
- Was held that the Election Commission as contemplated by the Constitution is a completely
independent institution and has to function in accordance with the same and the termination of
the services is not open to the challenge on the ground of any illegality. Also, the question of
whether the body should be multi-member or not is answered lawfully in the case.

CIVIL SERVICES
UOI v Tulsiram Patel
- Held in
- The court observed that while determining the impracticality of holding the enquiry, the point
of view of a reasonable man has to be used. If a reasonable man who is in this situation thinks
that holding such a enquiry is NOT practicable then it does not amount to violation of Article
311 if that enquiry is not held.