Www.iasbio.com | Www.exammap.

com

Important Supreme Court Judgement

A.K. Gopalan Case (1950)

• The Supreme Court concluded that the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act did not
violate the Fundamental Rights entrenched in Articles 13, article 19, Article 21, or Article
22, if the detention was carried out according to the law's procedures.
• Article 21 was interpreted narrowly by the Supreme Court in this case.

Shankari Prasad Case (1951)

• The constitutionality of the First Amendment was questioned in this case, which dealt with
the amenability of fundamental rights.
• The Supreme Court argued that the authority to amend the constitution granted to
Parliament under Article 368 also extends to the Fundamental Rights protected in Part III of
the Constitution.

WhatsApp for UPSC NOTES +918987187161 | +918987187153

 Www.iasbio.com | Www.exammap.com

Berubari Union Case (1960)

• This case challenged the Parliament's authority to transfer the territory of Berubai to
Pakistan.
• The Supreme Court looked into Article 3 in depth and determined that the Parliament could
not pass laws to carry out the Nehru-Noon agreement under this provision.
• As a result, the 9th Amendment Act was enacted to make the agreement enforceable.

Golaknath Case (1967)

• The questions, in this case, were whether amendment is a law; and whether Fundamental
Rights can be amended or not.
• The Supreme Court concluded that the parliamentary restriction under Article 13 does not
apply to Fundamental Rights, and that a new Constituent Assembly would be required to
modify the Fundamental Rights.
• Article 368 also states that while it establishes the framework for amending the
Constitution, it does not grant Parliament the ability to do so.

Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)

• The core structure of the Constitution was defined by this decision. Although no
component of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, was outside Parliament's
amending power, the Supreme Court decided that the “basic structure” of the
Constitution could not be repealed even by constitutional amendment.
• This is the legal basis in India for the judiciary to overturn any amendment passed by
Parliament that is incompatible with the Constitution's core framework.

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain Case (1975)

• Based on the doctrine of basic structure, the majority decision ruled that the challenged
clause 4 of Article 329, which was added by the 39th Amendment in 1975, was
unconstitutional.
• The 39th amendment, it was argued, would nullify a specific provision of the Constitution,
namely, the resolution of election disputes through the exercise of judicial power by
ascertaining adjudicative facts and applying relevant law to determine the true
representative of the People.
• The 39th amendment violates the principle of separation of powers by putting a purely
judicial function in the hands of the legislature.

Maneka Gandhi Case (1978)

• One of the key problems in this case was whether the freedom to go abroad is included in
Article 21 - Right to Personal Liberty.

WhatsApp for UPSC NOTES +918987187161 | +918987187153

 Www.iasbio.com | Www.exammap.com

• This judgement greatly expanded the scope of Article 21, and it achieved the Preamble's
goal of making India a welfare state.
• The most important aspect of the judgement was the interconnection it established
between the provisions of Articles 19, 14, and 21.
• As a result, this judgement significantly expanded the scope of personal liberty while
preserving the fundamental and constitutional right to life.
• This decision, in addition to protecting citizens from the Executive's unchallenged actions,
also preserved the sanctity of parliamentary law by refusing to strike down Sections
10(3)(c) and 10(5) of the 1967 Act.

Minerva Mills Case (1980)

• This incident strengthens the Basic Structure idea once again. The 42nd Amendment Act
of 1976 made two amendments to the Constitution, which the court declared to be
in violation of the fundamental structure.
• The Supreme Court's decision establishes that the Constitution is supreme, not the
Parliament.

Waman Rao Case (1981)

• The decision drew a line of difference between Acts placed under the Ninth Schedule prior
to the Kesavananda decision and Acts placed under the Ninth Schedule after the
Kesavananda decision.
• The court decided that all laws placed under the Ninth Schedule prior to the Kesavananda
judgement cannot be called into question for violating Fundamental Rights, but laws
enacted after the judgement can be brought before a court of law. It is also known as the
'Doctrine of Prospective Overruling,'
• The court upheld the validity of Articles 31A and 31B, which were added by the first
constitutional amendment in 1951, as well as unamended Article 31C, which was added by
the twenty-fifth amendment Act.

Shah Bano Begum Case (1985)

• The Supreme Court confirmed a Muslim woman's right to alimony, stating that the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, applies to all citizens, regardless of religion.
• This sparked a political debate, and the government at the time overturned the decision by
passing the Muslim Women (Protection on Divorce Act), 1986, which stipulated that
alimony be paid only during the iddat period.

Indra Sawhney and Union of India (1992)

• The Supreme Court looked into the scope and application of Article 16(4), which provides
for job reservation for backward classes.

WhatsApp for UPSC NOTES +918987187161 | +918987187153

 Www.iasbio.com | Www.exammap.com

• It confirmed the constitutional legitimacy of the OBC reservation of 27 percent, subject to

specific limitations (like creamy layer exclusion, no reservation in promotion, total
reserved quota should not exceed 50 percent, etc.)

S. R. Bommai Case (1994)

The Supreme Court attempted to stop the blatant abuse of Article 356 (which governs the
imposition of President's Rule on states) in this decision.

Vishaka and State of Rajasthan (1997)

• This case deals with workplace sexual harassment.

• The Supreme Court issued a series of rules for employers – as well as other responsible
individuals or institutions.
• The 'Vishaka Guidelines' are what they're named.

Lily Thomas v Union of India (2000)

The Supreme Court ruled that a Hindu man's second marriage without divorcing his previous wife,
even if he converted to Islam, is void unless the first marriage was dissolved in accordance with
the Hindu Marriage Act.

I.R Coelho and State of Tamil Nadu (2007)

• This judgement said that even though a law is listed in the 9th Schedule, it can still be
scrutinized and challenged in court.
• The 9th Schedule contains a list of acts and legislation that cannot be challenged in
court.

Pedophilia Case (2011)

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence of 6 years and hard imprisonment
imposed on two British nationals who were acquitted in a paedophilia case by the Bombay High
Court. "Sexual abuse of children is one of the most serious crimes," the court stated.

Aruna Shanbaug Case (2011)

• The Supreme Court declared that people have the right to die with dignity, allowing
for passive euthanasia under certain conditions.
• The terrible storey of Aruna Shanbaug, who spent 42 years in a vegetative
condition (blind, paralyzed, and deaf), prompted India's euthanasia laws to be changed.

WhatsApp for UPSC NOTES +918987187161 | +918987187153

 Www.iasbio.com | Www.exammap.com

NOTA Judgement (2013)

• The Supreme Court allowed voters to cast negative votes and reject all candidates as unfit
for office. It stated that the right to vote and the right to vote "none of the above" are both
fundamental rights of voters.
• It directed the Election Commission to provide the NOTA button on EVMs and ballot papers
in a phased manner.
• The right to vote against candidates in elections is part of the fundamental right to free
speech and expression guaranteed to Indian citizens by the Constitution.

Lily Thomas and Union Of India (2013)

The Supreme Court declared that any MLA, MLC, or MP convicted of a crime and sentenced to at
least two years in jail will lose their seat in the House immediately.

Nirbhaya Case (2014)

• The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013 amended and added new sections to the IPC
dealing with various sexual offences such as acid attack, sexual harassment, voyeurism, and
stalking.
• It changed the interpretation of the word rape as specified in IPC Section 375.
• The Supreme Court also redefined rape under the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offenses Act of 2012, the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, the Indian Penal Code of 1860, and
the Code of Criminal Procedures of 1973.

National Legal Services Authority and Union of India (2014)

• Transgender people were recognized as a third gender as a result of this lawsuit.

• The Supreme Court also ordered the government to treat them as minorities and
to increase reservations in areas such as education, employment, and education.

Triple Talaq Judgement (2016)

The Supreme Court prohibited the antiquated practice of quick 'triple talaq,' which allowed Muslim
males to break their marriages unilaterally by repeating the word "talaq" three times without
providing for maintenance or alimony.

Right To Privacy (2017)

The Supreme Court of India proclaimed the right to privacy to be a Fundamental Right protected
by the Indian Constitution.

Puttaswamy Case (2017)

• This Supreme Court decision safeguards individual rights against invasions of privacy.

WhatsApp for UPSC NOTES +918987187161 | +918987187153

 Www.iasbio.com | Www.exammap.com

• Supreme Court of India held that the right to privacy is a part of the right to
life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution

Repealing Section 377 (2018)

Section 377 was declared illegal by the Supreme Court "insofar as it criminalizes consensual
sexual contact between adults of the same sex."

WhatsApp for UPSC NOTES +918987187161 | +918987187153