LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS

OF
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
1. Kesavananda Bharati & Others V State of Kerala (1973)

This judgment defined the basic structure of the Constitution. The SC held that although no
part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, was beyond the Parliament’s
amending power, the “basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a
constitutional amendment.” This is the basis in Indian law in which the judiciary can strike
down any amendment passed by Parliament that is in conflict with the basic structure of the
Constitution

1. Golakhnath V State of Punjab (1967)

The questions in this case were whether amendment is a law; and whether Fundamental
Rights can be amended or not. SC contented that Fundamental Rights are not amenable to
the Parliamentary restriction as stated in Article 13, and that to amend the Fundamental
rights a new Constituent Assembly would be required.

1. Minerva Mills V Union Of India (1980)

In this landmark case Supreme Court Of India applied and evolved the Basic Structure of the
Constitution Of India The court ruled that the power of the parliament to amend the constitution is
limited by the constitution. Hence the parliament cannot exercise this limited power to grant itself an
unlimited power. In addition, a majority of the court also held that the parliament's power to amend is
not a power to destroy.

1. S. R. Bommai V Union Of India (1994)

A landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India, where the Court discussed at length
provisions of Article 356 of the Constitution of India and related issues. This case had huge
impact on Centre-State Relations.

1. Vishakha and Others V State Of Rajasthan (1997)

Various women's groupsi filed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the state
of Rajasthan and the central Government of India to enforce the fundamental rights of
working women under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petition was filed
after a social worker in Rajasthan, was brutally gang raped for stopping a child marriage.

The court decided that the consideration of "International Conventions and norms are
significant for the purpose of interpretation of the guarantee of gender equality, right to work
with human dignity in Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution and the safeguards
against sexual harassment implicit therein." The petition, resulted in what are popularly
known as the Vishaka Guidelines. The judgment of August 1997 given by a bench of J. S.
Verma (then C.J.I)., Sujata Manohar and B. N. Kirpal, provided the basic definitions of sexual
harassment at the workplace and provided guidelines to deal with it. It is seen as a significant
legal victory for women's groups in India

1. A.K. Gopalan V State Of Madras (1950)

The court restricted the meaning of Article 21 to the extent that personal liberty only means
freedom of personal body and nothing else. The court even restricted the scope of Article 19
and held that the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, is constitutional and does not violate any
fundamental right.

1. Shankari Prasad V Union Of India (1951)

In this case the first Amendment Validity was challenged This case dealt with the amenability
of Fundamental Rights. The SC contended that the Parliament’s power to amend under
Article 368 also includes the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III
of the Constitution.

1. Maneka Gandhi V Union Of India (1978)

It was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India in which the Court significantly
expanded the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It overruled A. K. Gopalan
v. State of Madras,. The main issue in this case was whether the right to go abroad is a part of
the Right to Personal Liberty under Article 21. The SC held that it is included in the Right to
Personal Liberty. The SC 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.

1. ADM Jabalpur V Shivkant Shukla (1975)

One of the most contentious decision of Supreme Court of India. This case is also known as
habeus corpus case. During emergency many opposition leaders were detained. They
challenged the govt action through writ petitions in various High Courts. Decisions of High
Courts were challenged in Supreme Court and SC held that Fundamental Rights Can be
suspended during emergency. Right to move to High Courts under Article 226 during
emergency was in issue in this case.

10. Justice K S Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2012)

Right to privacy case which holds that right to privacy is protected under
fundamental rights under article 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of India.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CASES

 PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS

1. Indira Sawhney V Union Of India is popularly known as.

a. Judges transfer Case

b. Illegal detention case

c. Mandal Commission case

d. Constitutional case

2. Due to the outcome of this case slum dwellers were benifitted

a. Nk Chanda V State of Haryana

b. Olga Tellis V Bombay Municipal Corporation

c. PV . Narasimha V UOI

d. Ratlam Municipal Council V Vardichand

3. Supreme Court in SP Gupta V Union Of India AIR 1982 SC 149 Decided on

a. Free legal aid

b. Bonded labours

c. Judges Transfer

d. Illegal Detention

4. Vishakha V State of Rajasthan case is related to

a. Sexual harassment at work place

b. Protection Of Civil Rights

c. Uniform Civil Code

d. None of the above

5. A landmark habeas Corpus petition was filled during emergency that is

a. Keshvanand Bharti V State of Kerala

b. Golaknath V state of Punjab

c. MC Mehta V UOI
d. ADM Jabalpur V Shivkant Shukla

6. Supreme Court decided in SR Bommai V UOI

a. Relating to the president rule in state

b. Relating to the illegal detention

c. Relating to the right to clean environment

d. None of the above

7. Supreme Court has decide in Keshvanand Bharti Vs state of Kerala that

a. Parliament can amend any provision of the constitution

b. Parliament cannot amend any provision of the constitution

c. Parliament can amend any provision of the constitution but not to alter the basic
structure and feature of the constitution.

d. none of the above

8. Right to free legal aid was recognized as a fundamental right under article
21 of Indian Constitution in the case of
a. Hussaainara Khatoon V State of Bihar AIR 1979

b. MH Hoskot V State of Maharastra AIR 1978

c. Madhu Mehta V UOI 1989

d. Rudal Shah V State of Bihar 1983

9. Delegated Legislation was declared constitutional in

a. Beru bari case

b. Re Delhi Laws act case

c. Keshvanand Bharti Case

d. Maneka Gandhi Case

10. SC of India Held that it is permanent obligation of every member of

medical profession either govt or private to give medical aid to every injured
person brought for treatment immediately without waiting for procedural
formalities in the case of
a. Common cause V UOI 1996

b. Peoples UOI AIR 1983

c. Parmanand Katara V UOI AIR 1989

d. Lakshmikant Pandey V UOI 1984

11. The sc of India has issued the direction to make the CBI independent
Agency so that it can function more effectively and investigate crimes and
corruption at high places in public life in the case of –
a. UOI V Association For democratic reforms , AIR 2002

b. Bangalore medical trust V B.S. Muddappa 1991

c. Vincent Panikurlangra V UOI 1987

d. Vincent Narayan V UOI AIR 1998

12. In Case Justice J.C. Observed “Since by the exercise of the power a serious
invasion is made upon the rights privacy and freedom of the tax payer , the
power must be exercised strictly in accordance with law and only for the
purpose for which law authorities it to be exercised
a. Director of Inspection V Pooranmal

b. ITO V Seth Brothers

c. P.R. Metrani V CIT

d. None of the above

13. The Concept of Curative Petition was Introduced by SC of India in the

Case of
a. Rupa Ashok Hura V Ashok Hura AIR 1973

b. M.C. Mehta V UOI AIR 1987

C. Krishna Swami V UOI 1992

d Sheela Barse Vs UOI 1986

14. The SC Invoked the principle of Transformative Constitutionalism in case

of
a. Navtej Singh Johar V uoi 2018
b. Suresh Km Koushal V Naz Foundation 2010

c. Naz Foundation V Government of NCT of Delhi 2009

d. Aruna Roy V UOI 2002

15. In Which of the following Cases the Court has laid down the Right to Life
does not Include Right to Die ?
a. State V Sanjay kr. Bhatia

b. Smt. Gian Kaur V State of Punjab

c. RVs Holiday

d. P.Rathinam Vs UOI

16. The Supreme Court Has legalized living wills and Passive enthanasia
subject to Certain Conditions in the case of
a. Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug V UOI 2011

B. Common cause V UOI 2018

C. Gian Kaur V State of Punjab 1996

d. D Chenna Jagadeeswar V State of A.P 1988

17.” Mere illegality of the strike does not per se spell unjustifiability”-Justice
Krishna Iyer. Name the case.
a. Chandramalai workmen Estate v Its

b. Associated Cement Ltd V their Workmen

c. Gujrat Steel Tubes V Gujrat Steel tubes Mazdoor Sabha

d. Indian General Navigation Of Railway Co. Ltd. V Their workmen

18. What is the leading decision in the case of Maneka Gandhi V UOI
a. Right Of Hearing

b. Seperation Of Powers

c. Delegated Legislation

d. Rule Of Evidence
19. In which of the Following case the SC first of all made an attempt to look
into the question regarding the extension of the right to life to the right to
health and other Hygenic Conditions
a.The Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra V State Of U.P.

b. M.C. Mehta V UOI

c. V. Lakshmipathy V State of Karnataka

d. F.K. Hussain V UOI

20. Promissory estoppels against Govt. agencies is decided in

a. Tweedle V Atkinson

b. Dutton V Poole

c Pournami all Mills V State Of Kerala

d. Kedar Nath V gauri Mohammad

lLandmark Supreme Court Judgments of 2022

1. Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India : In this case, the 103rd Constitutional

Amendment Act which provided 10% reservation to the Economic Weaker
Section of the General Catogory was challenged in the Supreme Court on
the basis that it violates the basic features of the Constitution and the
Fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constituion.

1. Aishat Sifha v. State of Karnataka : Split decision in Hijab Ban Case. The High
Court took a wrong path. It is ultimately a matter of choice and Article 19(1)
(a) and 25(1). It is a matter of choice, nothing more and nothing less.

1. Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India : No individual can be forced to receive Covid

Vaccinations. Bodily integrity is protected under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and no individual can be forced to be vaccinated.”

1. Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal: Recognising sex work as a

profession. Notwithstanding the profession, every individual in this country
 has a right to a dignified life under Article 21.

*THIS LIST IS NOT EXHAUSTIIVE

 

LEGAL PERSE
FOR MORE UPDATES, FOLLOW ME ON INSTAGRAM
AND TELEGRAM LINK IN BIO.

2 Jan 2023 9 min Read 8735 Views

1.
1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.
1.

1.

1.

1.