THE

THE SUPREME
SUPREME COURT:
COURT: AN
AN
OVERVIEW
OVERVIEW
 INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
 The SC has throughout sought to be
a defender of the rights of the people
against excesses of the executive.
The Court readjusted its position

depending on the Executive

Often the Court’s approach was

dependent on the leadership of the

Court
 THE FIRST PHASE
(1950 -60)
 The cases of Gopalan, Kameswar, Shankari
Prasad, Purushottam Lal, V.G. Row set the direction
along which the subsequent journeys were made,
built the foundation for the larger debates in
subsequent times.
 Gopalan Case: Preventive Detention Act, 1950

challenged.
 Romesh Thapar & Brij Bhushan Cases: pertaining

to the freedom of press.

 Kameshwar Singh: Section 4(b) of the Bihar Land

Reforms Act.
 THE SECOND PHASE
(1960-70)
 Political instability, economic decline, and lack of
political morality were the challenges before the
court.
 The Golak Nath V State of Punjab:

A bench of eleven judges constituted to consider

the power of Parliament to amend the
fundamental rights, specifically in relation to the
1st, 4th and 17th Amendments. SC [by 6:5 majority]
laid down that FRs were not amenable to
amendment at all.
 THE SECOND PERIOD
(1960-70)
 The Golak Nath V State of Punjab
 Subba Rao CJ took the view that art 368 was concerned
with the procedure of amendment, and since all
legislative power was subject to the provisions of the
Constitution, art. 13(2) restrained any amendment
which had the effect of eroding the FRs.
 There was a vigorous minority of 5 judges who took
exactly the opposite view and accepted that Parliament
had unlimited power to amend the Constitution.
 Doctrine of prospective ruling.
 THE SECOND PERIOD
(1960-70)
 The Bank Nationalization Case:
 The Congress Government passed the Bank
Nationalization Act of 1970 whose validity
was questioned before the Supreme Court.
 The Privy Purse Case:
 There was a strong demand for the abolition of
the privy purses granted to erstwhile rulers of
the princely states.
 The Supreme Court set aside both of them.
 THE THIRD PERIOD
(1971-76)
 Parliament passed the 24th Amendment, hence nullifying the effect
of the Golak Nath case, the Constitution 25th Amendment bill
amending Article 31 and adding Article 31(c) , hence nullifying
the judgment in the Bank Nationalization Case, and the
Constitution 26th Amendment Act abolishing privy purses.
 The Kesavananda Bharti Case:
This was a Kerala case under Article 32 of the Constitution in
which the petitioner sought enforcement of his fundamental
rights. In this case the Supreme Court responded with the answer
that the powerfully sovereign legislature, who were possessed of
otherwise plenary power to amend the Constitution, could not
alter the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.
 THE THIRD PERIOD
(1971-76)
 The Indira Gandhi Election Case:
Indira Gandhi’s election was set aside by the
Allahabad High Court and through an interim
order, the Vacation Judge, Krishna Iyer,
directed that the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi
was not to function as a member of Parliament
but could exercise the powers and perform the
functions of Prime Minister.
 THE FOURTH PERIOD
(1977- 80)
 In 1977, the Janta party came to power with overwhelming
support, defeating the Congress.
 Maneka Gandhi Case:

This case is related to the issue of a passport. The court held

that the procedure established by law in Article 21 must
satisfy the test of ‘just, fair and reasonable’ in Article 14.
 International Airport Authority Case:

In this case, the tender of a respondent who was not

qualified had been accepted, and this acceptance by the
airport authority was challenged by the petitioner as
discriminatory.

 The Fourth Period
(1977- 80)
 Minerva Mills Case:
 In this case, the controversy relating to the
validity of Article 31 ( c ) was fought. The
majority held that Article 31( c ) violated the
basic structure of the Constitution and was
therefore void.
 THE FIFTH PERIOD
(1980 – 84)
 The year 1980 brought Mrs. Gandhi back to power. This
period opened up new fields of interest and different
areas of judicial activities.
 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was born and became
the instrument in the hands of the middle class citizen
inspired by the media to correct the inadequacies and
slothfulness of the authorities and the establishment.
 It (PIL) became the philosophy of a new judicial
movement. Several benefits were conferred through PIL.
The doctrine of locus standi was liberated from Anglo-
Saxon fetters and a new strategy evolved for the benefit
of the poor and the disadvantaged sections.

 Contribution of 5 Judges
 Bhagwati chose PIL, Desai and
Thakar the area of tenants,
employees, and workmen,
Chinnappa Reddy the realm of
socialism, Krishna Iyer the broader
fields of egalitarianism and the cause
of prisoners.
 THE FIFTH PERIOD
(1980 – 84)
 The Judges Appointment and Transfer
Case:
It allowed the supremacy of the executive in
the appointment of judges. The National
Security Ordinance was challenged in the A.K.
Roy Case, where the majority approved the
ordinance and held that it was established
within the meaning of Article 21.
 THE FIFTH PERIOD
(1980 – 84)
 Sanjeev Coke Case:
In this case, it was held that the scheme of
nationalization of coking coal was essentially a
matter of state policy which was an inherently
inappropriate subject for judicial review. The
Coking Coal Mines was approved.
 During this period, judicial review of
Preventive Detention was expanded and
had to satisfy the test of reasonableness and
fairness.
 THE SIXTH PERIOD
(1985-87)
 The Administration Tribunal Act, 1985 was passed and enforced.
There were several obnoxious features of the Act but the Center
did not decide the issues.

Tulsiram Patel Case:
In this case, the doctrine of pleasure was revived. No Act or rule
can be framed to affect the doctrine of pleasure. Private interest
of personal livelihood must yield to its denial in public interest.
 Water Transport Cooperation Case:
In this case, employees whose services were terminated under
Rule 9, were challenged. The matter was eventually decided by
the Supreme Court. The rule was declared void as it militated
against public policy and was violative of Article 14, 39 A, and 41
of the Constitution.
 THE SIXTH PERIOD
(1985-87)
 The National Anthem Case:
In this case, students of Kerala school,
followers of the Jehovah’s Witnesses sect, a
worldwide Christian denomination, refused to
sing the national anthem on the grounds that it
was against their religious faith and were
therefore expelled. They filed writ petitions
before the Kerala High Court against their
expulsion. The Supreme Court allowed the
appeal of these children.
 Seventh Period (1987-98)
 The Union Carbide Case:
The leak and escape of poisonous fumes from
the chemical plants of the MNC, Union Carbide
caused the death of nearly 4000 people. There
was demand for compensation from the victims
and other organizations representing the dead.
There was a hue and cry condemning the
settlement because the compensation was
grossly inadequate and provided immunities
from criminal action against both Union Carbide
and the Government.
 THE LAST DECADE
(1987-98)
 The Ramaswamy Case:
Ramaswamy, while functioning as the Chief
Justice was alleged by the CAG of the state that
he had committed several financial
irregularities. The court took notice of the
allegations. Notice was served by 108 members
of the Ninth Lok Sabha for his impeachment.
The Speaker admitted the motion and
constituted a committee of inquiry.
 THE LAST DECADE
(1987-98)
 The Veeraswamy Case:
 In this case, Veeraswamy, the Chief Justice of the
Madras High Court was charged of possessing assets
disproportionate to his income and having committed
an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. His
contention was that he was not a public servant and
that Prevention of Corruption Act did not apply to
judges of High Court and Supreme Court. Dismissing
the appeal the majority held that the High Court and
the Supreme Court judges are public servants.
 THE LAST DECADE
(1987-98)
 The Mandal Case:
The Union of India issued a Memorandum on the basis of the
report of the Mandal Commission purporting to extend reservation
to socially and educationally backward classes in its service. The
Memorandum reserved 27 % of the vacancies to OBCs in addition
to the 22.5 % already reserved for the STs and SCs. An orgy of
violence followed the clash of two groups of youths and the
controversy reached the Supreme Court.
The majority held that the reservation can be
provided for other classes under Article 16(1) and Article 16(4) was
not an exception to the former. It was also held that caste in India
can be and quite often is a social class. It was held that there can be
no reservation for the poor even under Article 16(1). The backward
could include the more backward, and the creamy layer excluded.
 THE LAST DECADE
(1987-98)
 The Ram Janmabhumi–Babri Masjid Case:

A movement by extremists Hindu organization supported

by the BJP government in UP was launched to construct a
Ram temple at the Ram Janmabhumi-Babri Masjid complex.
Writ petitions were filed to direct the UP government to put
a stop to these activities. The President, under Article 356,
dissolved the UP Assembly. A reference was made to the
Supreme Court Under Article 143(1) of the Constitution. The
validity of the Act to acquire the land and the President’s
order were challenged before the Supreme Court. The Court
after many hearings, eventually held that the reference,
namely whether a Hindu temple or religious structure was
unnecessary and did not require to be answered.
 THE LAST DECADE
(1987-98)
 The Bommai Case: In this case, President’s rule
was promulgated under Article 356 in different states at
different times. All such orders were challenged before a
nine- judge bench. Four basic features were involved in
these cases, namely federalism, democracy, secularism and
the power of judicial review. The Court held that there had
been a violation of the secular features of the Constitution
which is a ground to hold that conditions of Article 356 are
fulfilled. It was held that the expression ‘cannot be carried’
in Article 356(1) does not mean impossible to conduct the
government of the state. This was a landmark case relating
to the concept of judicial review. The wall of separation
between the State and religion was breached justifying the
Presidential rule in this case.
SECOND PART, LAST DECADE
(1993- 98)
 The second part of the last decade witnessed a
new significant phenomenon, momentous in its
dimensions and disturbing in its impact. It
introduced the movement for the right to
information, call for transparent governance,
and the accountability of public functionaries.
The media inter alia had a direct impact on the
judiciary and more significantly on democracy
itself.